*
No. 1
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, November 19, 1968
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 19, 1968
Speech from the Throne, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor 3
Evidence Act, bill to amend, Mr. Wishart, first reading 5
Morion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 6
;
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday, November 19, 1968, being the first day of the second session of the twenty-eighth
Parliament of the province of Ontario for the despatch of business pursuant to a proclamation
of the Honourable W. Ross Macdonald, Lieutenant-Governor of the province.
Tuesday, November 19, 1968
The House met at 3 o'clock p.m.
The Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor,
having entered the House and being seated
upon the Throne, was pleased to open the
session with the following gracious speech.
Hon. W. Ross Macdonald (Lieutenant-Gov-
ernor): Mr. Speaker and members of the
Legislative Assembly of Ontario, I extend
warmest greetings and a sincere welcome to
each and every one of you.
Each session of the Legislature is an impor-
tant and memorable event in the life of our
province. This occasion is made particularly
memorable for me because, for the first time
since assuming my duties as the representa-
tive in Ontario of our beloved Sovereign,
Queen Elizabeth II, I have the privilege of
addressing the opening of a session of the
Legislature.
As my government convenes this second
session of the 28th Parliament of Ontario, the
people of our province continue to enjoy a
full and rich life almost unmatched in the
world today. Opportunities for human better-
ment abound on every hand. Dynamic growth
and prosperity are apparent at every turn.
The quality of the social, cultural and artistic
life of our people improves daily. Ontario
continues to be a predominant choice of those
who seek to establish new homes in a peace-
ful, dependable, stimulating and rewarding
environment.
While we enjoy the sum of the labour of
past years, the people of Ontario accept with
confidence the substantial, yet exciting, chal-
lenges of the days ahead. Happily, the chal-
lenges we face are those born of success,
prosperity, development and progress.
Throughout its history, and especially in
recent years, my government has been privil-
eged to play a vital and significant role in
constitutional and fiscal discussions involving
the federal and provincial governments of this
country. My government has always viewed
these events not as struggles between com-
petitors but as joint, cooperative ventures of
sovereign partners building on the wisdom
of the Fathers of Confederation with one
objective: a greater, stronger, more unified
Canada.
My government has always sought the co-
operation of the federal government in our
mutual objective of assuring that the people
of this province are not unduly or unfairly
taxed. While our endeavours to secure such
cooperation have met with little constructive
response in recent months, my government
expresses the hope that, in the interests of
equity, fiscal stability, and national unity a
more reasonable, constructive and understand-
ing attitude toward the financial needs and
constitutional position of the provinces will
be recognized.
In my government's continuing recognition
of its responsibilities to the people of this
province, it will advance measures and propo-
sitions in the session now beginning, designed
to ensure the maintenance of a vigorous and
dynamic Ontario in the context of the broader
interests of Canada.
In a renewed determination to hold taxa-
tion to the minimum consistent with a high
level of service to the people of Ontario, and
in its firm resolve to maintain the enviable
credit rating of the province, my government's
comprehensive programme to reduce costs and
increase efficiency is being pursued with the
utmost vigour. Included in the programme
are increased control over that portion of
spending within the direct scope of the prov-
ince; tighter scrutiny by Treasury board of
all matters having financial implications; re-
evaluation of procedures, methods, forms and
equipment; re-appraisal of existing pro-
grammes; re-scheduling and deferment of new
programmes; and renewed emphasis on effi-
ciency and economy in every branch and
agency of the Ontario government.
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
All programmes financed in whole or in
part by provincial taxpayers but administered
by other public authorities, including munici-
palities, boards of education, universities, col-
leges of applied arts and technology, Crown
corporations and other boards and commis-
sions, will be subject to intense public scrutiny
to ensure that maximum efficiency is attained.
In the session of the Legislature upon
which the House is now embarking, my gov-
ernment will submit in the budget statement
and in other legislative proposals, measures
which will reflect a determination to achieve
the fullest efficiency of government and the
greatest utilization of tax revenues. All cur-
rent programmes that contribute to the public
good will be continued with undiminished
vigour. New proposals are being designed to
achieve a greater equity and efficiency in the
administration of government, in our system
of taxation, and in our relationship with our
municipal partners.
My government has reviewed in substan-
tial detail the constructive and definitive
recommendations of the Hon. J. C. McRuer
in his report upon civil rights in our province.
Legislation will be introduced for the con-
sideration of the hon. members which will
implement several of the most basic recom-
mendations contained in this report. In par-
ticular, a bill respecting the expropriation
laws of Ontario will be brought forward for
your consideration. In addition to including
some of the recommendations made by the
Hon. Mr. McRuer, the bill will also reflect
the recommendations of the Ontario law
reform commission in its report upon the basis
for compensation for expropriation. The legis-
lation will be designed to ensure equity and
justice for all whose lands may be expropri-
ated or affected by land acquisition pro-
grammes necessary in the public interest.
Among the measures to be placed before
the hon. members will be proposals to institute
regional government in various areas of the
province where sufficient study has been
completed.
To provide further equality of service
throughout the province, amendments to The
Assessment Act will improve the assessment
function. Included will be the implementation
of certain recommendations of the Ontario
committee on taxation and the select com-
mittee of the Legislature on the report of
the taxation committee.
During the session an opportunity will be
afforded hon. members to give serious and
responsible attention to the machinery of
collective bargaining and related labour and
management matters arising out of the recom-
mendations contained in the report of the
Royal commission inquiry into labour disputes.
Hon. members will be asked to consider
legislation respecting mechanics' hens and the
manner in which they are dealt with in the
construction industry in Ontario.
To further ensure that every person in
Ontario is free and equal in dignity and
rights, hon. members will be asked to approve
the strengthening of the Ontario Human
Rights Code.
Hon. members will have placed before
them for approval revisions of the hearings
and appeal procedures of a variety of sta-
tutes which give protection to the people of
Ontario in their business transactions both as
buyers and sellers. In addition, the far-reach-
ing and important legislation relating to busi-
ness corporations, which was introduced
during the first session of the 28th Legisla-
ture, will be brought before the House.
The availability of reasonably priced homes
will continue to be vigorously pursued by my
government, with further expansion of the
highly successful Home Ownership Made
Easy programme. As further encouragement
to individual home ownership and to bring
home ownership within the reach of an even
larger segment of our people, you will be
asked to approve policies which will facilitate
the construction of substantial numbers of
condominium dwellings.
The goal of equality of educational oppor-
tunity will continue to be a prime objective
of my government. During this session,
implementation of the legislation creating
larger units of school administration will be
pursued, together with consideration of the
report of the provincial committee on aims
and objectives of education in the schools of
Ontario.
Legislation will be introduced creating an
educational communications authority and to
implement certain recommendations of the
report relating to the Ontario College of Art.
My government, mindful of the continuing
requirements of social services for the people
of Ontario, will place before you legislation
which will allow the steady development of a
programme to assist children with mental and
emotional disorders.
Your approval will be requested for a
number of additional progressive programmes
NOVEMBER 19, 1968
within the field of correctional services, in-
cluding the establishment of a fresh approach
to the counselling of families.
Placed before you for consideration will l>e
a health protection Act, embodying the most
modern concepts in public health legislation.
My government's vigorous programmes
designed to prevent and reduce abuses of our
environment in the Various fields of pollution
will be pressed forward with the utmost
determination.
The policies of my government in assisting
the agricultural community of Ontario to
improve both the production of food and
recompense to the farmer will be pursued
with continued intensity.
Among the continuing programmes ensur-
ing the steady growth and development of
the communities and industries of northern
Ontario will l>e legislation to create a Ixxly to
coordinate all northern transportation policies.
Included will be legislation affecting the min-
ing industry through important changes in
The Mining Act and related statutes as well
as a thorough overhauling and updating of
legislation affecting safety requirements in the
mining industry.
My government will increase its efforts to
ensure that our forest industries will share in
the predicted increased demand for wood
and wood products. The programme of
acquisition of land to provide additional
recreational areas, provincial parks and con-
servation authority facilities will be pursued
with vigour.
The highly successful programme to equal-
ize industrial opportunity will continue to
extend its beneficial effects throughout our
province.
To fulfill the demands of the motoring pub-
lic and to encourage economic development
in all aspects of the province's industry, the
construction and maintenance programmes of
The Department of Highways will be pressed
forward throughout the province. Every
region of Ontario benefits from its pro-
grammes.
Recognizing not only the increasing com-
plexity and severity of municipal problems,
but also the dynamic opportunities that lie
before our municipal partners, my govern-
ment will propose a number of financial and
other measures designed to be of substantial
assistance.
In summary, you will have placed before
you an extensive legislative programme. This
programme is designed to further enhance
and enrich the lives of all the residents of our
Ixjloved province and our beloved country
while striving for attainment of the greatest
possible efficiency.
May Divine Providence guide you in your
deliberations.
God save the Queen and Canada.
The Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor
was then pleased to retire from the Chamber.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House
that, to prevent mistakes, I have obtained a
copy of I lis Honour's speech, which I will
now read.
(Reading dispensed with.)
THE EVIDENCE ACT
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General)
moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act
to amend The Evidence Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Min-
ister of Financial and Commercial Affairs (Mr.
Rowntree), that the speech of the Honourable
the Lieutenant-Governor to this House be
taken into consideration tomorrow.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put, perhaps
you will permit me a moment or two to
make some comments on this, the first day of
the session, when the opportunity is available
without the intrusion of any political con-
siderations to mark the occasion.
I would like to draw to your attention, sir,
that this is the first occasion that His Honour
the Lieutenant-Governor has spoken to the
opening session of the Legislature and we,
as residents of Ontario, are proud of this
man, and I speak, of course, as a citizen of
Brant county, from which he himself comes;
and I want to draw your attention, sir, to the
fact that he is considered one of our first
citizens.
As I look around the House I am glad to
see, sir, that there are no vacancies resulting
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
from our recess and I particularly am de-
lighted to see that our good friend, the hon.
member for Middlesex South (Mr. Olde), has
recovered and is back among us.
I will not occupy your attention unduly,
sir, but I feel that, since this is the first occa-
sion since 1961 when we have had the
opportunity to discuss public affairs this early
in the year, we look forward with great
anticipation to the discussion of His Honour's
remarks that were presented to us this after-
noon.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the House do
now adjourn.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 3:35 o'clock, p.m.
No. 2
ONTARIO
Hegtelature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT -DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, November 20, 1968
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 20, 1968.
Reading and receiving petitions 9
Motion for provision for printing reports, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 9
Motion to appoint standing committees, Mr. Reilly, agreed to 10
Motion to appoint select committee re standing committees, Mr. Reilly, agreed to 21
Federal-provincial conferences on the constitution and tax matters, questions to
Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon 22
Nuclear power generating station at Douglas point, questions to Mr. Simonett,
Mr. Nixon 22
Report of investigation into air pollution at Dunnville, questions to Mr. Dymond,
Mr. Nixon 23
Peterborough "Examiner" strike, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. Nixon 23
Law reform commission report on landlords and tenants, question to Mr. Wishart,
Mr. MacDonald 23
Recreation and park facilities along Lake Erie lakefront, questions to Mr. Brunelle,
Mr. MacDonald 24
Cream producers marketing board, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. MacDonald 24
Ontario hospital services commission, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Sargent 25
Outside audit to determine Ontario government finances, questions to Mr. Robarts,
Mr. Sargent 25
Ontario Hydro rates, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Sargent 26
Area designation by the OWRC, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Bullbrook 26
Financial losses of Mrs. Janet Gurman, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Shulman 26
Compensation re Larry Botrie, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 26
Legal expenses of Magistrate Gardhouse, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 27
Purchasing policy for equipment in secondary schools, questions to Mr. Davis,
Mr. T. Reid ,. 27
Bargaining procedures for teachers and trustees, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid .... 28
Crown attorney for Sudbury district, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sopha 29
Hall-Dennis report, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. Pitman 29
Commission on religious teaching in public schools, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Pitman 30
Ontario Provincial Police, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Bullbrook 30
Transfer review board, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. Martel 31
Severances of land in rural areas, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Paterson 31
Acreage control of agricultural products, question to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Paterson 31
Fertilizer costs, question to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Gaunt 32
Imports of tractors, question to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Gaunt 32
Hardy report, question to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Knight 32
Nursing personnel, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Knight 32
Wire-tapping equipment, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Singer 33
Aldermen in the city of Toronto, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Singer 34
Lay-offs in Windsor, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. B. Newman 34
Dominion Forge Company strike, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. B. Newman 35
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 35
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We start our session today
with the following guests in the galleries: In
the east gallery are members of the King
City women's institute and students from
Appleby college in Oakville. I am sure we
welcome these people here on the first work-
ing day of this session.
Petitions.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present this 12,700-
signature petition from the most neglected
part of Ontario, northwestern Ontario.
While I recognize the petition has already
done its good, I still feel that I have been
charged with the responsibility to bring it to
the floor of the Ontario Legislature which I
am seeking to do today. I would like to
formally turn it over to the Premier (Mr.
Robarts) at this time.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
The member will of course realize, because
he has now had some experience in the
House, that petitions to be brought before
the House must be brought in the proper and
normal manner. If the member is not aware
of the proper procedure I am sure that the
Clerk of the House will give him guidance
and tomorrow it may perhaps be presented
in the appropriate manner.
Clerk of the House: The following petitions
have been received:
Of the corporation of the city of Ottawa
praying that an Act may pass permitting the
corporation to establish a rental authority.
Of the Ontario Co-operative Credit Society
praying that an Act may pass authorizing an
increase in its capital.
Of the corporation of the city of London
praying that an Act may pass vesting the
management, operation, equipment and con-
trol of the hospitals of the city of London in
a board called The Board of Hospital Trustees
of the city of London.
Of the corporation of the borough of Scar-
borough praying that an Act may pass author-
Wednesday, November 20, 1968
izing the borough to pass by-laws respecting
advertising devices.
Of the corporation of the town of Burling-
ton praying that an Act may pass establishing
a parking area.
Of the corporation of the city of Niagara
Falls praying that an Act may pass authoriz-
ing it to exempt, by agreement, owners and
occupants of buildings from the necessity of
supplying parking facilities.
Of the corporation of the village of Dutton
and the corporation of the township of Dun-
wich praying that an Act may pass permitting
them to maintain a home for the care of the
sick and distressed in the area.
Of the corporation of the town of Lindsay
praying that an Act may pass authorizing the
removal or demolition of buildings that are
in a ruinous or dilapidated condition.
Of Cyril W. March, Daniel McLean and
Donald Graff praying that an Act may pass
reviving March Diamond Drilling Limited.
Of the corporation of the town of Parry
Sound praying that an Act may pass provid-
ing that the time limited for appealing the
1963 decision of The Department of Muni-
cipal Affairs with respect to the equalization
factors for that year may be extended to
allow such an appeal to be made.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary and
Minister of Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I beg
leave to present to the House, the annual
report of the liquor control board of Ontario
for the year ending March 31, 1968.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves,
seconded by Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Pro-
vincial Treasurer) that, during the present
session of the legislative assembly, provision
be made for the taking and printing of reports
of debates and speeches, and to that end Mr.
Speaker be authorized to employ an editor
of debates and speeches and the necessary
stenographers at such rates of compensation
as may be agreed to by him. Also, that Mr.
Speaker be authorized to arrange for the
printing of the reports in the amount of
10
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
2,500 copies daily, copies of such printed
reports to be supplied to the Honourable the
Lieutenant-Governor, to Mr. Speaker, Clerk
of the legislative assembly, to the legislative
library, each hon. member of the assembly,
to the reference libraries of the province, to
the press gallery, to the newspapers of the
province approved by Mr. Speaker, and the
balance to be distributed by the Clerk of the
assembly as directed by Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that commenc-
ing on Friday next this House will meet at
10:30 a.m. each Friday until further order;
and that commencing on Monday next we
will meet at 2:30 p.m. each Monday, Tues-
day, Wednesday and Thursday until further
order.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton) moves, sec-
onded by Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria), that
the standing committees of the House for the
present session be appointed as follows:
Agriculture and food committee; education
and university affairs committee; govern-
ment commissions committee; health com-
mittee; highways and transport committee;
legal and municipal committee; labour com-
mittee; natural resources and tourism com-
mittee; private bills committee; privileges
and elections committee; public accounts
committee; social, family and correctional
services committee; standing orders and
printing committee; which said committees
shall severally be empowered to examine and
inquire into all such matters and things as
may be referred to them by the House, and
to report from time to time their observations
and opinions thereon with the power to send
for persons, papers and records.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): At the first session of the Legislature
a year ago I drew to your attention, sir, and
to the attention of the other members of the
House, the view the official Opposition has
that our committee system is entirely inade-
quate as it has been set up during previous
years.
It is not my intention to recount to you,
sir, the arguments that have been put before
you in the past but to express the displeas-
ure that we on this side of the House have
that the leader of the House has not under-
taken some initiative in this matter to im-
prove the situation which in fact, under his
jurisdiction, has been deteriorating since
1961.
There have been honest proposals put be-
fore the House and before the government,
Mr. Speaker, which in fact would expedite
the work of this Parliament. It would in
fact make the deliberations on matters that
are intended to come before these commit-
tees much more meaningful than they can
now be made with the stylized and formal
and inadequate approach that the Premier
of this province takes.
Now there are many examples of this very
matter that I would like to call to your atten-
tion. For the edification of the barrackers
in the back row, where they will stay for
another two years, surely they would listen
to this matter and give it their full attention,
because they are the ones who are driven
out of the back rooms, they have to set
down their euchre hands-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Nixon: —so that they can come and be
a majority, so that they can come and be a
majority-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Nixon: —and maintain the position that
the Premier has ordered for so many years.
Now let us look at this reasonably and I
ask you, Mr. Speaker—
Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Revenue):
Let us be constructive.
Mr. Nixon: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to keep
the backbenchers and the new Minister of the
Crown silent for at least a moment until we
can-
Is the Minister getting up on a point of
order?
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
While we all realize that this is the opening
of a new session and that there are many
things to be said by all members, I would
ask that the members give the leader of the
Opposition a hearing, and thereafter I am
sure there are those who will be capable of
speaking to the matter.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your
interjection, but my view is that we must get
on with the business of the House. I do not
intend to hold it up at this time, but I do
propose to you, Mr. Speaker, that the best
suggestion to improve the committee system
in many years has come from this side with
the proposal that we enact the facilities for
an estimates' committee which would take
much of the discussion on the detailed spend-
NOVEMBER 20, 1968
11
ing procedures of this government into a com-
mittee situation, where those people who lead
the various branches of the civil service
would be prepared to give their views on
factual matters and the Ministers would be
present to state the policies as they are con-
cerned.
There are many definite proposals that
should be considered. The most important
besides an estimates' committee would be, for
example, that the education committee would
not wait for the tardy Minister's approach to
legislation, which usually comes on in April
and May, but that we in fact constitute this
standing committee as a continuing one to in-
vestigate the situation of education in the
province of Ontario.
This is what we are here for and this is
what I propose, Mr. Speaker, that we can
undertake if we have a proper approach to
the committees that would be constituted by
the government Whip's motion.
As a matter of fact I was quite surprised
that the chief government Whip made this
motion. I seem to recall that the motion is
usually the prerogative of the leader of the
government, but it has been put by the mem-
ber for Eglinton—
Mr. Reilly: I am quite sure the hon. mem-
ber wants to be correct, and if he checks
Hansard last year he will find it was proposed
by the government Whip.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Nixon: Well Mr. Speaker, I am glad to
see that the Whip is here almost in a new
identity. I understand he has new facilities
and is building an empire just outside the
Legislature, and we can expect a much better
job from him than we have seen in the past.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It has
gone to his head.
Mr. Nixon: Perhaps a laurel wreadi would
go with this!
But Mr. Speaker, if I might put to you my
serious consideration that the House would
be well served by the addition to the commit-
tee list that has been put before us just a few
moments ago, by the addition of an estimates'
committee which would expedite the business
of the House.
And while I am concerned with that, it
would do something far more important. It
would give us a much more democratic and
efficient means to examine not only the Min-
ister but his chief advisors in the expendi-
tures of the swollen budgets that have been
put before us in the last two years, and which
no doubt will be put before us in the near
future.
With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, I want to
move an amendment to the motion put be-
fore us by the member for Eglinton, moved
by myself and seconded by the member for
Downsview (Mr. Singer), that to the list of
committees proposed be added an estimates'
committee.
Mr. Speaker: It is moved by Mr. Nixon,
seconded by Mr. Singer, that to the list of
committees proposed be added an estimates'
committee.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre): I
move, seconded by the hon. member for
Windsor West (Mr. Peacock), that the motion
be further amended by adding thereto the
following: housing and urban problems com-
mittee.
Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Renwick moves, sec-
onded by Mr. Peacock, that the motion be
further amended by adding thereto the fol-
lowing: housing and urban problems com-
mittee.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would
rise to say that I find it necessary to vote
against both these amendments. If the hon.
member wants to check Hansard for the
opening day or the second day, for probably
the last three years, the government's position
will be found as far as an estimates' commit-
tee is concerned.
As far as the committee system itself is
concerned, as I said last year, the committee
system, its efficiency and what it is able to
achieve, really rests in the hands of the mem-
bers of the committees. If the hon. members
read and listen to the motion, they will note
it says the committees may deal with any-
thing referred to them by this House. There
has never been any intent on the part of the
government to prevent any committee from
dealing with any matter it wishes to, within
its terms of reference.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Oh, non-
sense!
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I might say the member
for Downsview said "nonsense" last year at
precisely the same juncture.
Mr. Singer: It is the same nonsense.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I am not going to go
into the question of attendance at committee
meetings, but we have kept attendance rec-
ords quite carefully and it has been said in
12
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
this House before that the major delinquents
in attendance at committees are the official
Opposition.
I am greatly interested in making the com-
mittee system work better. I am interested
in anything that will make the deliberations
of this House and committees of the House
more meaningful.
Last year I undertook to provide staff if
that were necessary to the committees in
carrying out their duties. Now, if these com-
mittees wish to arrange programmes of exam-
ination of various matters that fall within the
terms of reference of a specific committee,
this government will not block them in that
attempt.
I would suggest to the leader of the Oppo-
sition that, instead of waving his arms around,
shouting and making rude remarks across the
floor, he should instruct some of his mem-
bers on the committees to get to work and
make some concrete proposals as to what
they would like to do in committee; that
would be a good deal more constructive than
this same speech we hear every year.
The whole secret of this lies in the mem-
bers' own hands so do not thump the gov-
ernment for it, just activate the committees
and let us see what happens.
As far as the estimates' committee is con-
cerned, the estimates are very thoroughly
examined in this House. No doubt before the
Budget comes down there will be some dis-
cussion in this House as to how we are to
handle the estimates this session.
If, in our examination of different pro-
cedures here, we can come to an agreement—
I do not object to an estimates' committee
per se— but I do object to appointing a com-
mittee which is simply going to do in one
form what then will be repeated in this
House. And that is precisely what would
happen at the present time.
Now, if we can work out some form of
committee that would not simply lead to
duplication, I would be quite prepared to
look at it; but simply to establish an esti-
mates' committee at this stage with this
amendment, does not seem to me to be very
practical.
I really do not think it is necessary to have
a select committee of the House to deal with
housing and urban problems. I might say
that this suggestion has not been made to
me up until this time. I do not know whether
the Whips met, but ordinarily they do to go
over the list of committees because we have
changed them around and broadened them.
I do not know whether this suggestion has
ever come forward but I think there are all
kinds of areas in which housing and urban
problems can be considered, and I do not
think that at this stage, it is necessary we
establish another committee of the House.
We have enough difficulties in getting atten-
dance and getting some meaningful work
done as it is.
I recall, when I was Minister of Educa-
tion, that I got hold of the chairman of the
committee on education and, over a period
of two or three years, we examined every area
of that department and how it functioned.
We brought all the civil servants before the
committee to answer any questions the mem-
bers might have.
That went on very nicely for about two
years but I dropped it eventually because
the attendance faded away and I had the
officials from the department there but I
really did not have much attendance from
the members. But however, these things-
Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, if you will permit me. The standing
committee on education to which the Prime
Minister refers was chaired by the present
Minister of Revenue and I must say that
that committee has not functioned properly
since he gave up that chairmanship. Perhaps
he should have been kept there rather than
given his new responsibility.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, I accept full re-
sponsibility for the appointments to this gov-
ernment but—
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): The Prime
Minister has got to live with them.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I will live very comfort-
ably with them for the foreseeable future.
But I mention this simply to illustrate my
point that the committees contain within
themselves the ability and the power to
accomplish just about anything the members
on the committees want to accomplish. There-
fore, I do not think the point made by the
leader of the Opposition— is well taken and I
propose to vote against these two amend-
ments.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Let them
make up their own minds.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! Order!
The member for Riverdale has the floor if
he wishes to avail himself of it.
NOVEMBER 20, 1968
13
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the same remarks of the Prime Minister this
year as we heard last year about these stand-
ing committees of the legislative assembly.
I was fascinated by the paragraph at the
bottom of page three of the Speech from the
Throne which says that all programmes
financed, in whole or in part, by provincial
taxpayers but administered by other public
authorities, including municipalities, boards of
education, universities, colleges of applied
arts and technology, Crown corporations and
other boards and commissions, will be subject
to intense public scrutiny to ensure that maxi-
mum efficiency is attained.
I had thought, of course, that the intense
public scrutiny would be carried on by the
standing committees of this Legislature. I
had assumed that under the government com-
missions the majority of the boards and com-
missions and Crown corporations would
appear for this public scrutiny, which has
not as yet, taken place before that committee.
I had assumed also, that the boards of
education, the universities and colleges of
applied arts and technology, would be
appearing before the standing committee on
education and university affairs.
If this is not to be the case — and the
Speech from the Throne seems to be explicit
on the matter— then I would ask in what way
are these various emanations— including the
municipalities and the other bodies listed—
in what way are they going to be subject to
intense public scrutiny?
Mr. Speaker: It would be my opinion that
the matter raised by the member for River-
dale is extraneous to the discussion before
the House at the moment.
I would also like to say to the members
that I have had a note from the press gallery
that the speaker system is not working very
well and they would request that the mem-
bers speak up. Perhaps the technicians listen-
ing might check on it.
The member for Scarborough Centre now
has the floor.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, surely the
concern of providing a place for the public
unrest in housing and urban problems to
come, rather than having them fester out
there, as they are at this present time, is
an overriding consideration as to whether
this government could bear the burden of
another committee.
The unrest that is in our society in the
metropolitan area of Toronto right now has
to have a place to come. The reason why
the Prime Minister has not heard from this
side of the House, from my own particular
seat, on this question before is that in re-
viewing our committees today, Mr. Speaker,
I felt that it was urgent that we provide a
place where the people of this province can
come with their briefs, with their complaints,
with their unrest.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to comment on the
two ammendments that are now before the
House.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: There is no doubt as to
who is leader of the party, if you have not
heard. News travels slowly to the Tory
benches but I thought I would help them.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order!
Mr. MacDonald: I do not wish to rehash
the debates of earlier years, but apparently
it becomes necessary as sometimes rather
serious matters get lost.
Let me deal first with the question of a
committee on estimates. There would be one
value in a committee on estimates. Some
cabinet ministers on that side of the House
know their departments and, if you ask them
a question, they can reply. Other cabinet
ministers have not a clue. They have their
ear down, trying to get fed the information
so that we have to have the information from
the people in the department who do know,
strained through a minister who is nearly
incompetent.
Do not force me to name names because
I will if I have to.
There will be one value, Mr. Speaker, in
having an estimates' committee and that
would be, to have come before the estimates'
committee, Deputy Ministers and various
other experts in the department so that we
could quiz them directly.
However, there are two factors that flow
from that. The first is that some people think
—and this is really the important point I
want to make— that if you have a discussion
of the estimates before the estimates' com-
mittee, there will be less discussion in the
House. It does not happen.
In Ottawa they discovered that the repeti-
tion does not reduce the consideration in the
House. If I have to choose between whether
or not we are going to have a little greater
flexibility out in a committee or deal here
with the Minister, who, in the final analysis,
14
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
is responsible— if he is incompetent let his
incompetence be spread before the world
starting with this House— that is the important
thing. I want to see the estimates considered
in this House on the record as fully as this
House deems necessary so that we know
precisely where we are. The reason why I
have some hesitation in getting drawn into
the proposition of an estimates' committee is
because I foresee the prospect that it will
become a substitute for debate in this House,
and in my view that is the top priority.
On the second issue, I am not going to
repeat what the hon. member for Scarborough
Centre has said. She has made the case for
a committee, but unfortunately the Prime
Minister has rather a closed minded approach
to it. He just automatically discards it, as
is the usual fashion by this government.
Housing and urban problems— you review
them and where will they come up? Housing
will come up, I presume, under government
commissions. I suspect maybe most of them
may be brought under government commis-
sions, so that you have a committee that deals
with literally 80 or 90 commissions through-
out the whole range of the affairs of this
province, and in it the question of housing
and urban affairs gets lost.
Mr. Speaker, if this government does not
know as yet that it is sitting on a time bomb
in terms of unmet housing and urban prob-
lems, then it will find out in the next
election. Let it now ignore a more rational,
sensible approach to this kind of problem,
because it will suffer the consequences at the
next election. Maybe that is the appropriate
way to do it them, if it is intent on being
stubborn.
Mr. Singer: In the second session of the
28th Legislature, we are again embarking on
the ritual rain dance that has heralded sessions
of this Legislature since 1867, and before
that when it was the Legislature of Upper
Canada. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that
in a time when we have so many serious
problems to face, we must revise our pro-
cedures in order to deal with our problems
in a sensible and logical way.
If we listen to the words of the Treasurer,
and listen to the words of the Premier, the
province is on the verge of a fiscal night-
mare, and we are now going to spend four
to six weeks listening to the debate on the
Speech from the Throne, a meaningless docu-
ment as it was enunciated yesterday. We are
going to hear the speeches about "the hills
and the valleys of my riding" coming from
117 or a lesser number of members, and we
are not going to get down to the fiscal prob-
lems that face this province, Mr. Speaker,
until we have sat for another eight or ten
weeks.
It would seem to me that since we are
forced into the straitjacket of that kind of
procedure, perhaps at this time we could
depart just a little bit so that, hopefully,
members of this House can get down to
some of the real problems that face it. That
is why the resolution, or the amendment,
moved by my leader, makes abundant good
sense, and the reply made by the Premier
makes no sense at all.
The Premier says, for instance, that the
committees can deal with anything they want.
Now, collectively their decisions are the view
of the government majority, and as the gov-
ernment majority dictates, and as the gov-
ernment chosen chairman dictates, so the
committees act.
Hon. Mr. White: That is not so.
Mr. Singer: It is not what the members of
the House want to deal with, it is what the
government ordains that the committees shall
deal with that is considered. Mr. Speaker, I
would have hoped that the elevation of the
hon. member for London South to the cabinet
would have removed him from the position
of director of the House, but apparently it
has made no difference. His capacity is so
great that apparently he can run the House
and run his department as well. I wish him
good luck but I am sure he is going to need
it.
Mr. Speaker, an example occurs to me, or
a very obvious example, about committees
being able to do anything they want, and
that is the committee on commissions. For
several years we tried to find out what
happened in the Niagara parks commission.
For several years the government refused us
this privilege and one day when we had a
couple of hours— and that is all that was
allocated to the Niagara parks commission— a
vote was forced as to whether or not that
matter could be discussed, and what
happened?
As the discussion took place and the debate
took place in that committee, it became
obvious to the deputy whip, the member for
Durham, that his party was outvoted, so as
the debate progressed and it was obvious that
the record, the tawdry record, of the Niagara
parks commission was going to be made
public, what did the deputy government
Whip from Durham do? He ran out into the
corridors and just in time as the vote was
being called, he literally marched in— "go, go,
NOVEMBER 20, 1968
15
go, go"— a half a dozen back benchers who
did not know what was under discussion so
that they could vote against the matter be-
coming a public issue.
Now that is the sort of thing that in the
Premier's words, means that "the commit-
tees can do anything they want". Mr.
Speaker, that is a denial of democracy.
Let us get on with this. The committees
only meet when the chairman calls them to
meet and they can only do what the govern-
ment majority will let them do.
Surely the time has come when we should
become practical in dealing with the affairs
of this province, and when we should have
more time and more ability to examine the
estimates, and to bring before us the senior
civil servants who are responsible so that
they can be asked questions and there can
be sufficient time to do it. For that reason
it makes good sense if the amendment moved
by my leader be supported.
Let me comment briefly on the amendment
moved by the member for Scarborough
Centre. Surely we must adapt our procedures
to the problems of the present day world, and
anyone with half an eye can see that there
is a very serious problem existing in the big
cities here in Ontario.
You do not have to be any genius— you do
not even have to sit in the government
benches— to discover that there is a housing
crisis in Ontario, and what better way could
there be to deal with a housing crisis, and
with urban problems, than to have a special
committee of this House dealing with that at
regular times and with a regular agenda? Mr.
Speaker, I think it is time that we brought
our procedures up to date and I would hope
that the hon. members of the House would
support both of these amendments.
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr.
Speaker, the last session was my first experi-
ence as a member of this Legislature and
one in which I participated with interest
because it was the first time that I had had
an opportunity to compare the method of
reviewing procedures and operations of gov-
ernment versus business. I was a member of
four different committees, two of which were
quite active— namely, private bills and the
education committee, it being involved with
a contentious bill that required a lot of hear-
ings.
The private bills committee, of course, was
on the regular business of private bills. The
other two were municipal affairs and trans-
port, which had in one case, two or three
meetings, and in the other one, I think one
meeting.
In each case, it did not give those of us
on that committee an opportunity to look into
the operation of the department concerned,
or question people about it. To my mind we
are, in effect, directors representing the share-
holders or people of this province and instead
of a few thousand shareholders in the case
of companies there are—
Hon. Mr. White: That is the C. D. Howe
approach to government.
Mr. Deacon: —millions of them in con-
nection with the people who pay the taxes
in this province. They are, as the hon.
Minister from London South knows, terribly
concerned about the way our money is being
spent— and we heard that more than we heard
anything else this summer. They see the
amount we are going to have to raise and
they say, "Surely to goodness, can we not
find more efficient ways of spending those
dollars?" As it now stands, each Minister is
fully occupied with his own department. He
is speaking for his own department in the
cabinet, which is in a way, the inner circle
which is deciding how much money is going
to be spent by the government. There is no
one from the outside looking on, as is the
case with the boards of directors of com-
panies, where shareholders have someone
from the outside looking in and questioning
the way departments are being operated.
I think that we must take a new look at
this committee system. We must not just be
called when there is a bill before us that is
contentious. We must be given an oppor-
tunity to discuss with members of the depart-
ment—with the Minister present, of course—
what the procedures are and the policies in
each of the various branches of the depart-
ment.
In one of the departments for which I was
given responsibility last year, I was given, by
the Minister, an absolute open hand to go
in and ask questions and find out what I
wanted. In the other case, I was told "hands
off". The only opportunity I had to speak or
question the department was when it came
before the estimates of the House. This is
not the time that we can really dig in and
find good sound reasons and facts, because it
is just wasting the time of the House. Many
of these things are detailed— things that you
want to assemble and then come to a con-
clusion as to how wisely the administration
is being handled.
I do urge that the Prime Minister recon-
sider the roles of the committees and make
16
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
much more use of them. Perhaps cutting out
our evening sessions and calling committee
meetings then. On more than one occasion
I had two or three committee meetings all
at the same time and if our attendance was
not always good, I suggest that this is one
of the reasons.
I know in the case of the education com-
mittee that many times the Opposition out-
numbered members of the government, as far
as representation there—
An hon. member: Until the vote came and
they dragged them in by the coat collars.
Mr. Deacon: But those of us who are
willing to find out how departments for
which we have concern are operated should
be given a much greater opportunity than
now is available to us in the open sessions of
the House.
An hon. member: Well said.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr.
Speaker, I just want very briefly and as vigor-
ously as I can, to ask the Prime Minister to
reconsider his opposition to the establishment
of a committee on housing and urban prob-
lems.
He cannot offer his objections that this will
be one of those committees which will not be
well attended. I can assure him that the
urban members from both sides of this House
will be in full attendance at such a commit-
tee, if the scheduling of committee sessions
is properly drawn up.
He has now had an opportunity to consider
the arguments of the official Opposition in
support of the establishment of an estimates'
committee. He may well not be able to re-
consider that proposal. But I urge him to
reconsider, if he cannot do so at this moment,
his position on the establishment of a com-
mittee on housing and urban affairs and, at a
subsequent session, at his pleasure, introduce
a motion for the establishment of such a
committee after he has reflected as to who,
among his members, could properly be ap-
pointed to this chairmanship.
I appeal to the Prime Minister to do this,
Mr. Speaker, because the urgency of this area
of our provincial affairs is so great— and de-
spite the progress that his own Minister
asserts the government is making with it— I
feel that the Prime Minister himself feels it
is so great that it is deserving of the atten-
tion that only a committee of this House can
give to that problem.
Mr. Reilly: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would
like to say that I listened to the hon. leader
of the Opposition at the last session at the
same time introduce the same thoughts that he
repeated here today. May I suggest to him
that as far as the estimates' committee is
concerned this was discussed by the repre-
sentative Whips of all three parties. We, as
members of the government, were not op-
posed to an estimates' committee, but the
members of the Opposition were opposed to
an estimates' committee. We could get no
unanimity among the Whips themselves for
an estimates' committee.
Mr. Nixon: Nonsense!
Mr. Reilly: This is not nonsense. This is
fact, if the hon. leader of the Opposition
wants to reflect upon it.
To hear the hon. member for Downsview
suggest that the government ordains whatever
committee work the committee is going to
deal with is nonsense. This is nonsense, be-
cause I was the chairman of a committee in
this House and I was never instructed by the
government what should appear before this
committee. It was left to the chairman and it
was left to the members of the committee to
deal with whatever they wanted to do.
Mr. Nixon: Subject to the majority Tories
who are notoriously dull.
Mr. Reilly: Well let us not deal with
absenteeism, because I do not think, Mr.
Speaker, that we accomplish anything in this
House by dealing with who attends and who
is absent and what the attendance is.
Mr. Nixon: I agree.
Mr. Reilly: Because if you want to deal
with this I have facts and figures that might
prove a little embarrassing to the Opposition,
but I see nothing accomplished to bring this
up every time. What I am suggesting—
Mr. Singer: The hon. member left his toga
off today.
Mr. Reilly: What I am suggesting to you,
Mr. Speaker, is that as far as the estimates'
committee is concerned, the members of the
government and all the members in the
House are rather anxious to do anything that
will improve the efficiency of the House. So
far today, I have heard nothing that is going
to help to improve the efficiency of the House.
Under the circumstances, of course, I would
vote against both amendments.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr.
Speaker—
NOVEMBER 20, 1968
17
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lake-
shore has the floor.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I will speak very
briefly on this.
As far as the question of attendance is con-
cerned, I noticed last year that very often-
one being on a committee— we are expected
to be in two places at the same time. The
scheduling of these things in part accounts, I
suspect, for the attendance on certain occa-
sions.
Now a second thing touching this attend-
ance situation. I can well recall, Mr. Speaker,
two or three occasions in the education com-
mittee—which I think the Opposition, over
here, attended assiduously because of the
importance of the issues. We very well might
have scuttled the whole of Bill 44 in it— and
the whole set-up of education that went
through this House last year. We used to sit
around and joke a little bit about it. It is you
people over there that are ineffective in pro-
ducing the bodies, not to speak of produc fag
the minds— necessary to advert to these mat-
ters.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, on the third point,
why cannot the hon. Prime Minister give
consideration to updating these committees
anciently contained in Alex C. Lewis's book
here? When pressing problems of the day
arise of an extraordinary character, why can-
not a committee be set to work such as in this
area of housing— which is a major concern to
all of us at this time— so the public may have
a greater access to us? So that briefs may be
heard, so that a voice is given and methods
worked out that are directly referable to the
members in this Chamber! So that we are
made thoroughly cognizant, not that we are
not already well acquainted with, the prob-
lems involved!
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the
hon. Prime Minister reconsider, update, be
open, and bring this Legislature into con-
formity with the times.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, I would just make one or two com-
ments, one of a general nature and another
of a specific one.
The first is really in the form of a question
to the Premier of the province. It is a con-
tinuing question, and that is, when are we
going to get down to a very hard-headed
look at the total reform of the way this Legis-
lature conducts its business? I would have
liked to have seen in the Premier's state-
ment at least an indication that he is serious
about reforming the outdated ways of doing
business in this province.
You are running, if you like, a very large
enterprise, spending a lot of money, and I
for one am very worried that we cannot cope
with the social problems, housing and urban
affairs, along the same lines as this House has
tried to cope with other problems over the
past 25 years.
I think this year is the time to reform the
procedures of the House, to reform the way
in which criticism can be effective from Her
Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and I would like
to see that started this year. So, I would
suggest to the government, Mr. Speaker, that
we must move to reform the procedures of
this House, to update them, so that we can
better provide the services to the people of
this province than we have in the past.
I am worried in particular that all mean-
ingful democracy, to quote the member for
Port Arthur (Mr. Knight), must move out of
the Legislature onto the front steps of the
legislative building. I believe—
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member is
speaking to a motion with respect to an
amendment to a motion with respect to the
creation of committees of this Legislature.
As yet, he has not yet reached that particular
area of discussion and I would ask him that
he do so.
Mr. T. Reid: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I simply say
that I am glad at least that we have a com-
mittee system. I would like to see it part of
a much larger programme of reform in this
House.
The specific suggestion I would like to
make to the government is that the commit-
tees of the Legislature, the standing commit-
tees of the Legislature, not be staffed by
departmental officials. I think these com-
mittees, since they are legislative committees,
should be staffed through the Clerk's office.
I would like to see services provided not by
civil servants of the government side who see
their role as providing services to government
members only, but by members of the Clerk's
staff.
I would like to have objective secretaries
of those committees writing objective re-
ports, instead of leaving out many valuable
comments that many Opposition members
make in any notes they take.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, I would hope
that the government members and particu-
larly, in this case the Minister of Education
would take their responsibilities and his
18
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
responsibilities more seriously and show up
at more of these meetings of the education
committee.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
I will not spend any time on the question of
a committee for the estimates. I believe that
we had considerable dialogue on that mat-
ter at the beginning of the last session, and
I think the situation has not differed from
that time and so I think our position is very
clear in that regard.
But this question of a housing and urban
problems committee is a new suggestion to
this House. I recall, during the session, that
I asked this government to initiate a special
discussion on the whole question of housing.
Obviously this fell on deaf ears and this
debate never really took place. So the sug-
gestion that has been made by my colleague
is that we do provide a forum to—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I can only
point out to the member that we spent days
and days discussing the whole problem of
housing in this province during the esti-
mates of the hon. Minister who is in charge
of the housing corporation. So it really is
not accurate to say that there is no forum
for discussion of housing in this Legislature,
because, of course, there is.
Mr. Pilkey: I withdraw those remarks on
the basis that I recognize there was some
discussion but I think we must have a con-
tinuing forum, not just a forum where we
discuss it during the Minister's estimates. We
must have a continuing forum, because this
problem has not been met.
It is not only in the Metro area, I sug-
gest, Mr. Speaker; it is right across the
length and breadth of this whole province,
this question of housing. And it is critical.
I raised it because I experienced problems
in my own area. Now do not tell me that
the backbenchers of the Conservative gov-
ernment are not meeting these same prob-
lems in their areas.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correc-
tional Services): All right, we shall not tell
the member.
Mr. Pilkey: Okay, do not tell me, but I
suspect very strongly that you do meet these
problems and what better way to bring those
problems to the attention of the government
than through a committee instead of raising
them continually here in the Legislature? As
a matter of fact as I pointed out earlier, the
forum is not provided on a continuous basis.
So I support my colleague's motion and I
think the government should give this sug-
gestion top priority in terms of its imple-
mentation.
Mr. N. Whitney (Prince Edward-Lennox):
Mr. Speaker, relative to the discussions that
have been held, I would like to refer back
to two years ago, the 1966 session I think it
was, when I was chairman of government
commissions. At that time, at our first meet-
ing, the committee made suggestions as to
the particular commissions it would like to
have brought before the committee.
To the best of our ability we followed
the suggestion that was made regardless of
the party or the politics of the member
making the suggestion. During that session,
I believe we had some 15 government com-
missions or more before us, and I might say
that one of the commissions that the Opposi-
tion members were most desirous to deal
with was the water resources commission.
Our member on the water resources com-
mission was kind enough to make arrange-
ments to take us out to their laboratory and
to have a detailed discussion with key offi-
cials, describing the whole situation. We
saw the testing of water, and they made a
most interesting day of it. Yet on that occa-
sion there was just one Opposition member
present. So consequently I do feel that the
Opposition is not giving credit to the efforts
made by the government to make informa-
tion available. That concludes my remarks.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to make just a few comments on the
need for a housing and urban problems
committee. One area that has not yet been
touched and one that is creating great prob-
lems throughout this province is the matter
of tenancy. This would be a committee
where tenants throughout the province could
come to air their views and to explain to
the government the cruel conditions of ten-
ancy that are presently being forced upon
them.
There is a great need for reform; there
is a need for a place where people of this
province can come and explain to this gov-
ernment—which is obviously so far out of
touch— the great problems they are being
confronted with at this time. And I urge
every government member, and especially
those who come from urban areas, to reflect
for a moment about the problems of ten-
ancy in the areas from which they come and
to support the formation of a committee on
housing and urban problems.
NOVEMBER 20, 1968
19
Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough
West.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like the
government and the Prime Minister to realize
that the sub-amendment placed by the New
Democratic Party today springs from the
overwhelming magnanimity which we have
for the government on occasion. It is the
milk of human kindness, Mr. Prime Minister,
which charges through our veins.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker,
that one must exercise a little compassion for
this government because it will be brought
down in the next three years by the dis-
integration in its ranks around urban prob-
lems and housing— make no mistake about it.
What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker,
with that beneficence which is characteristic
of social democrats, is to provide a certain
funnel for the obvious public discontent which
animates this area, and I must say, Mr.
Speaker, that there is a magnificent obtuse-
ness on the part of the government in this
field.
The fact that the Ontario housing corpora-
tion no longer functions in any meaningful
way; the moment this committee was raised
in the House the Minister of Trade and
Development fled for his very life; the—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I advise the
member and the members of the House that
I had a note from the Minister who had an
appointment in Trenton which he had to
keep and, therefore, had to leave.
Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I accept that and
I hope that he is building a house in Trenton.
It would be a refreshing turn of events.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs has
busied himself frantically with paper work
in order to avoid joining the issue, Mr.
Speaker, and the Prime Minister himself
trembles quietly in his seat because he
knows, as all of us know, that the sands of
time are running out around the issue of
urban problems.
Mr. Speaker, the Ontario housing corpora-
tion no longer functions. The area of low
rental housing has not been adequately
attended to. The HOME plan is exposed
everywhere through the province of Ontario
as a ludicrous fantasy on the part of govern-
ment. It is evident, in terms of the tenant
situation here, even in metropolitan Toronto,
that that is reaching an explosive ignition
point
For its own sake, let alone for the sake of
the people of the province, the government
would be wise to allow a committee on hous-
ing and urban problems so that there can be
some frontal coping with the situation. That
is what we are asking for, Mr. Speaker, and
that is why we support this sub-amendment.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Orderl
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
in rising to support this amendment, I think
that every member of this House knows of
the need for compassion in this area we are
talking about. I want to say, Mr. Speaker,
that if I ever have a need for a heart trans-
plant, I hope to get John Robarts', because
it has never been used.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order!
Mr. Sargent: When pay day comes again
next election—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Is that the way the hon.
member is going to get my heart?
Mr. Sargent: —this will be one of the key
points in the re-election or defeat of the
government. Today will be a day to re-
member if you vote against this amendment.
Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member
who wishes to speak to the motion or the
amendments? Then we will vote, of course
first on the second amendment moved by
Mrs. Renwick, seconded by Mr. Peacock, that
the motion made by Mr. Reilly be amended
by adding thereto the following: "housing
and urban problems committee".
The House divided on the further amend-
ment to the motion made by Mrs. Renwick,
which was negatived on the following
division:
Yeas
Nays
Braithwaite
Allan
Breithaupt
Apps
Brown
Bales
Bukator
Bernier
Bullbrook
Boyer
Burr
Brunelle
Davison
Connell
Deacon
Davis
Deans
Demers
De Monte
Downer
Edighoffer
Dunlop
Farquhar
Dymond
Ferrier
Evans
Gaunt
Gilbertson
Gisborn
Grossman
Good
Guindon
20
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Yeas
Haggerty
Innes
Jackson
Knight
Lawlor
Lewis
MacDonald
MacKenzie
Makarchuk
Martel
Newman
(Windsor-Walkerville)
Nixont
Paterson
Peacock
Pilkey
Pitman
Reid
(Scarborough East)
Renwick
(Riverdale)
Renwick (Mrs.)
(Scarborough Centre)
Ruston
Sargent
Shulman
Singer
Smith
(Nipissing)
Sopha
Stokes
Trotter
Worton
Young— 45
Nays
Hamilton
Haskett
Hodgson
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Hodgson
(York North)
Jessiman
Johnston
(Parry Sound)
Johnston
(St. Cartharines)
Johnston
(Carleton)
Kennedy
Kerr
Lawrence
(Carleton East)
Lawrence
(St. George)
MacNaughton
Meen
Morningstar
Morrow
McKeough
Newman
(Ontario South)
Olde
Price
Pritchard (Mrs.)
Reilly
Reuter
Robarts
Rollins
Root
Simonett
Smith
(Simcoe East)
Smith
(Hamilton Mountain)
Snow
Stewart
Villeneuve
Welch
White
Whitney
Winkler
Wishart
Yakabuski
Yaremko— 55
Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the "yeas"
are 45, the "nays", 55.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The vote will now be on the first amend-
ment to the main motion, moved by Mr.
Nixon, seconded by Mr. Singer, to the list
of committees proposed be added an esti-
mates' committee.
Mr. Nixon: In the interest of efficiency, we
will accept the same vote.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker—
An hon. member: Nice try, Bob.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order!
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in the in-
terest of accuracy we will not.
Mr. Speaker: Then shall we start this
again? The vote is on the first amendment to
the main motion. The amendment moved by
Mr. Nixon, seconded by Mr. Singer, that to
the list of committees proposed be added an
estimates' committee. As many are in favour
of the amendment will please say "aye," as
many are opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the "nays" have it.
Mr Nixon: I would suggest Mr. Speaker,
that for this vote we could do without ring-
ing the bell.
Mr. Speaker: Is it agreeable to the House
that the official Opposition be shown as vot-
ing in favour and all the other members
against this amendment?
The House divided on the amendment by
Mr. Nixon which was negatived on the follow-
ing division:
Yeas
Nays
Braithwaite
Allan
Breithaupt
Apps
Bukator
Bales
Bullbrook
Bernier
Deacon
Boyer
De Monte
Brown
Edighoffer
Brunelle
Farquhar
Burr
Gaunt
Connell
Good
Davis
Haggerty
Davison
Innes
Deans
Knight
Demers
MacKenzie
Downer
Newman
Dunlop
(Windsor-Walkerville) Dymond
Nixon
Evans
Paterson
Ferrier
Reid
Gilbertson
(Scarborough East)
Gisborn
Ruston
Grossman
Sargent
Guindon
Singer
Hamilton
Smith
Haskett
(Nipissing)
Hodgson
Sopha
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Trotter
Hodgson
Worton-25.
(York North)
NOVEMBER 20, 1968
21
Yeas
Nays
Jackson
Jessiman
Johnston
(Parry Sound)
Johnston
(St. Catharines)
Johnston
(Carleton)
Kennedy
Kerr
Lawlor
Lawrence
(Carleton East)
Lawrence
(St. George)
Lewis
MacDonald
MacNaughton
Makarchuk
Martel
Meen
Morningstar
Morrow
McKeough
Newman
(Ontario South)
Olde
Peacock
Pilkey
Pitman
Price
Pritchard (Mrs.)
Reilly
Renwick
(Riverdale)
Renwick (Mrs.)
(Scarborough Centre)
Reuter
Robarts
Rollins
Root
Shulman
Simonett
Smith
(Simcoe East)
Smith
(Hamilton Mountain)
Snow
Stewart
Stokes
Villeneuve
Welch
White
Whitney
Winkler
Wishart
Yakabuski
Yaremko
Young-75.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment
lost.
We now come to the main motion.
Mr. Reilly moves, seconded by Mr. Hodg-
son (Victoria-Haliburton), that standing com-
mittees of this House for the present session
be appointed as follows:
1. Agriculture and food committee.
2. Education and university affairs com-
mittee.
3. Government commissions committee.
4. Health committee.
5. Highways and transport committee.
6. Legal and municipal committee.
7. Labour committee.
8. Natural resources and tourism com-
mittee.
9. Private bills committee.
10. Privileges and elections committee.
11. Public accounts committee.
12. Social, family and correctional services
committee.
13. Standing orders and printing commit-
tee,
which said committees shall severally be
empowered to examine and enquire into all
such matters and things as may be referred
to them by the House and to report from
time to time their observations and opinions
thereon with power to send for persons,
papers and records.
As many as are in favour of the motion
will please say "aye," as many as are opposed
will please say "nay."
In my opinion the "ayes" have it.
I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by Mr. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton), that
a select committee of 15 members be
appointed to prepare and report, with all
convenient despatch, lists of the members to
compose the standing committees ordered by
the House, such committee to be composed
as follows: Mr. Olde, chairman; Mrs. Prit-
chard; Messrs. Carruthers, Farquhar, Gilbert-
son, Henderson, Newman (Ontario South),
Price, Rollins, Rowe, Smith (Nipissing), Stokes,
Winkler, Yakabuski and Young.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Mr. A. E. Reuter (Waterloo South): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. My
point, sir, has to do with an issue of the
22
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Globe and Mail dated today, Wednesday,
November 20, and a picture that appears on
the front page of the third section of the
issue that was circulated last evening, sir.
Mr. Lewis: The member has never been
so popular.
Mr. Reuter: This picture, sir, includes
several members of the New Democratic
Party-
An hon. member: All friends of yours.
Mr. Reuter: It includes myself having a
private little friendly conversation with two
members of the New Democratic Party, but
my point, sir—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That will teach the
hon. member.
Mr. Reuter: My point, sir, has to do with
the caption that appears below the picture.
I want to set the records straight, sir, that
my name is not Jack Stokes, I do not repre-
sent the people of Thunder Bay, nor am I
a member of the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, it may well be, sir, that my
point of privilege is expressed to the House
on behalf of the New Democratic Party as
well as myself, because I am sure, sir, that
they realize full well that I am a true blue
Conservative, one of those tried and true
fully loyal Tories. I doubt very much that
they would want the impression that has been
conveyed by the picture to hold true that
such a tried and true Tory is in fact, sir, a
member of the caucus. I simply want to set
that record straight.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the hon. Prime Minister.
What are the dates for the federal-provincial
conferences on the constitution and on tax
matters? Secondly, can arrangements be made
for me to attend these conferences as an
observer?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, there is a
constitutional conference which, I believe, is
on December 17, 18 and 19. There is an-
other meeting to be held of the Ministers of
finance, but I do not believe any date has
been set for that.
As far as your attendance at these meet-
ings as an observer is concerned— frankly, I
have had no communications from Ottawa as
to what the procedural arrangements will be.
I can assure you however that my attitude
in these matters has not changed from the
Confederation of Tomorrow conference. I
will be proposing to the federal government
that these conferences be open to the press,
open to the television cameras.
We have nothing to hide when we go to
these conferences and I would like to see the
meeting of the Ministers of finance opened
to the press too, so that we are going to—
An hon. member: Let the people see.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not have the re-
sponsibility of conferences convened by the
federal authorities but if it can be arranged,
I would be delighted to have you there as
an observer. I would be delighted to make
the same arrangements for the leader of the
New Democratic Party.
We will be discussing matters of great
moment to our people and I think that they
deserve the fullest attention that is humanly
possible to give them. I would like to think
that we would involve the people of the
country in these matters to the greatest extent
we can and all my efforts will be directed
to that end.
Mr. Nixon: If I might ask a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker.
The conference on fiscal matters is attended
only by Treasurers and not by the Prime
Ministers as well?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, that is so.
In some provinces the leader of the govern-
ment is also the Treasurer— I believe Mr.
Bennett is his own finance Minister, but—
Mr. Nixon: But in this case you do not
expect to attend?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, I do not, really.
Although if I think it might be the thing to
do— I would not close the door to the fact
that I would not go, but it is really called as
a meeting of finance Ministers.
I recall when we set up the tax structure
committee, that ill-fated committee that is
now being talked about to be reconstituted,
I hope with some better effect than last
time. At that time I asked, I believe, to be
put on that committee as well as the Treas-
urer, in order that I could attend the meet-
ings. I do not think there would be any
objection to the leader of the government
going, but it is scheduled as a meeting of
Ministers of finance.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Minister of Energy and Resources
Management.
Is Ontario Hydro's atomic generator plant
at Douglas Point now commissioned?
NOVEMBER 20, 1968
23
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker, it
has frequently been explained to this House
that it is misleading to refer to the nuclear
power generation station at Douglas Point as
an Ontario Hydro atomic generator plant. It
is still owned for the federal government by
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and sup-
plies power to the Ontario Hydro system at
an agreed rate.
The answer to the question as to whether
this plant is commissioned is "yes".
Mr. Nixon: The Minister might give us the
date of that commissioning.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, the sta-
tion was commissioned on September 26.
Mr. Nixon: Then it would be incorrect, Mr.
Speaker— if I may be permitted another sup-
plementary question— to refer to that plant as
a part of the Ontario Hydro system?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, this plant
is not a part of the Ontario Hydro system.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I may have
misled you. I note you say that this confer-
ence is on December 16, 17 and 18. I may
well have said 17, 18 and 19, but it is Decem-
ber 16, 17 and 18.
Mr. Nixon: I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Health.
When did the Minister receive the report
of the investigation into air pollution at Dunn-
ville and when will that report be tabled in
the Legislature?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I have not officially received the
report yet. When it went to the printers
about three weeks ago I was given a draft
copy— that is the typewritten copy, not com-
pletely corrected. I expect that it will be
tabled in the House either the last week of
this month or the first week of December.
That is the date I am advised the printers will
have it finished.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a question for the
hon. Minister of Labour.
Will the hon. Minister of Labour report
to the House on the state of the strike
between the Peterborough Examiner news-
paper and the Toronto Newspaper Guild, sir,
and advise the Legislature when he will bring
the parties together to resume negotiations?
Secondly, is it a fact that the guild's request
for a union security clause, which is now
standard in most collective agreements of this
character, is proving an obstacle to negotia-
tions?
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, in reply to the question from the
hon. leader of the Opposition, it is the prac-
tice of the conciliation branch to review the
strike situations throughout the province al-
most on a daily basis, in order that we may
determine what assistance can be given to the
parties to help them resolve their disputes.
This has been done in reference to the Peter-
borough situation. I cannot say at this time
when the parties will be brought directly
together again to resume negotiations.
In reference to the second part, there are
a number of issues outstanding in reference to
this matter between the parties. It would
really be inappropriate for me to attempt to
judge publicly the relative importance of
those particular issues because they concern
the parties themselves.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
Minister would be prepared to say whether or
not this union security clause is one of the
matters at variance?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I think it is
fair to say that it is one of a number of
issues.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before ask-
ing my question, may I express my apprecia-
tion to the Prime Minister for indicating that
an observer status can be granted to Opposi-
tion leaders and that it will be accorded to
me also. He answered the question before
I had an opportunity to ask it, for once.
My first question is to the Attorney Gen-
eral. Can the Attorney General advise the
House whether the Ontario Law Reform
Commission report with regard to landlords
and tenants will be made available during
this session and, if so, can the Attorney Gen-
eral give the House an approximate date on
which such a report might be expected?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I expect the report in the im-
mediate future— by that I mean very shortly.
I know that the research and study lead-
ing to the preparation of that report has been
done. I might perhaps let the hon. member
for York South know that I asked the law
reform commission some months ago to
devote special attention to the field of land-
lord and tenant law as part of their overall
study on the real property— which is the
study they are doing— and the chairman
agreed to that. That work has proceeded
with despatch.
24
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I may say this— I know that the report is
now in the course of preparation and I would
feel it can be prepared in a matter of days,
I would think. To say that we might get it
this month, I am not sure, but very shortly.
Mr. MacDonald: My second question, Mr.
Speaker, is to the Minister of Lands and
Forests.
Has the government instituted expropria-
tion procedures to increase park facilities
along the Lake Erie lakefront?
Secondly will the government take steps to
open the Michael road in Humberstone town-
ship, especially at this time when the Pro-
vincial Gas Company is laying a line along it?
Third, what steps has the government
taken to avoid repeated violations of public
rights by fencing being run out into the
water by adjoining property owners?
Fourth, is the government giving any con-
sideration to the development of the east Erie
lakefront into a continuous green belt joining
the Niagara River and Welland Canal?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
member for York South:
Question number 1— the answer is "yes".
Number 2— opening of road allowances is
under the jurisdiction of the municipalities.
Number 3— the government is not aware of
any violations of public rights by fencing. If
unauthorized occupation of Crown land is
discovered, remedial action is taken.
Number 4— although mention has been
made of such a development, no detailed pro-
posals are under consideration at this time.
The greatest need would seem to be acquisi-
tion and development of land for parks pur-
poses in that area.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard
to point three, may I ask the Minister a
supplementary question? Since it is widely
alleged that this goes on all the time, is it
not a legitimate proposition for the law en-
forcement agencies to check it continuously
— the running of fences out into the water?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would say, Mr.
Speaker, that this matter is under active
consideration and we should have some
answers on this matter at a later date.
Mr. MacDonald: My following question,
Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Agriculture
and Food.
1. Are only two of the nine members of
the cream producers marketing board actu-
ally cream producers at this time?
2. Do the regulations permit of such mas-
sive representation by non-producers?
3. If not, what does the Minister propose
to do about it?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Mr. Speaker, in reply to this
question, I am not aware as to the number
of cream producers on the cream producers
marketing board. The hon. member says there
are only two of them who are actual pro-
ducers—this may be the case—three, the hon.
member says, as of elections yesterday. I am
not worried about this.
I do know that the regulations that estab-
lished the cream producers marketing board
some years ago intended that the members
should be actual cream producers.
There are something like 13,000 cream pro-
ducers in the province of Ontario. As a matter
of fact, one of these men, quite by chance
yesterday, happened to be seated next to me
at the cream producers' lunch at their annual
meeting. He mentioned to me that he was
no longer a cream producer and he suggested
to his board— that is to the producers in his
zone— .that he should be relieved of his
responsibilities, but, he said, "they simply
said to me, Vou have the time now to attend
these meetings'."
I would like to point out through you, Mr.
Speaker, to the hon. members of the House,
that these 13,000 cream producers in this
province generally speaking run one-man
farms. They do not have a lot of help around
them. They are not specialized farms. Cream
production really is sort of a side issue to
the main objective of the farm.
It is very difficult for these men to get
away to meetings either in their own county,
their own zone, or in the provincial organiza-
tion. So they have, of their own volition, sug-
gested that those men, who have contributed
so much throughout the years in the direction
of the programme, might continue in their
office as provincial directors on the marketing
board.
I am sure the leader of the New Demo-
cratic Party would not want The Department
of Agriculture and Food to step in and sug-
gest to these men that they were no longer
competent. They are competent, because they
have had, in many instances, a lifetime of
experience, not only in the production of
farm separated cream, but in the development
cf a programme which, through its own pro-
motion, has created the fact that butter is
perhaps in the least surplus position of any
of the dairy products in Canada today.
NOVEMBER 20, 1968
25
They have done a magnificent job of
promotion of their product. I would say that
the cream producers of this province have
not only promoted the use of butter on a
very large scale, but they have held of! the
market sizeable quantities of skim milk which
could have gone into dry powder and further
aggravated the enormous surplus of this
which we have in Canada today.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, by way of
a supplementary question. Do the regula-
tions permit of a non-producer sitting as a
director?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: The regulations, as I
understand them, do not specifically say that
it must be a producer. They imply that it
should.
Mr. Speaker: In view of the impending
departure of the Prime Minister on an
appointment, I would ask that those members
who have questions of the Prime Minister,
beginning with the hon. member for Sarnia,
be given the floor. May I have the agree-
ment of the other members for that? Thank
you. The hon. member for Sarnia.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Mr. Speaker,
my question directed to the hon. Premier:
Will the Premier advise if he will permit a
delegation from the council of the city of
Sarnia to discuss with him the proposed
designation of the Sarnia area by the Ontario
Water Resources Commission?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member wrote me about this on October 30.
It so happens, I have a reply ready for him
today, which I will send across the floor
to him. As it is a local matter, it is all
explained in the letter and I will not take
up the time of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Grey-Bruce wish to ask any questions?
Mr. Sargent: A question for the Prime
Minister, Mr. Speaker: ( 1 ) Would the Prime
Minister assure me and the people of Grey-
Bruce that the Ontario Hospital Services
Commission, will not close any hospitals in
our area; and (2) Will the Prime Minister
assure me that in the future the OHSC will
let the people decide before any hospital
changes are made in their areas?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I would say the answer
to both questions is "no". I cannot give the
member any assurance of what the Ontario
Hospital Services Commission might do in
the exercise of the powers and discretions
given to it in the legislation which estab-
lished it.
Certainly, as far as the second question is
concerned, ". . . let the people decide before
any hospital changes are made in their
area?", the whole concept of what the
member is getting at there, I assume, is
before any change is made in any hospital,
any place in this province, you would have
to have a vote of the people concerned.
Of course, that idea is completely ridicul-
ous. I would have to say in answer to both
the questions that I cannot give any assur-
ance that the Ontario Hospital Services
Commission will not order the closing of
hospitals they may not consider adequate to
provide health care. I just could not give
such an assurance.
Mr. Sargent: In that regard, Mr. Speaker,
either the member for Grey South, or the
Prime Minister, will have to eat their words
then.
Mr. Speaker: Order! If the hon. member
has any further questions-
Mr. Sargent: A supplementary question
dien, Mr. Speaker, of the Prime Minister:
Will the Prime Minister agree that these
people pay the same rates for hospitalization
as other people; that they have to drive 20
or 30 miles to a hospital in the winter time;
and that the OHSC is a commission not
responsible to the people? The Prime Min-
ister will have to eat those words some time.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member wish
to ask any more of the questions he has
filed?
Mr. Sargent: A question of the Prime Min-
ister: Will the government agree to an im-
mediate outside audit to determine the exact
financial position of the affairs of the Ontario
government because of the financial night-
mare facing the province?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, we do not
face a financial nightmare. I have no inten-
tion of introducing any outside auditors.
There will be an interim financial statement
furnished in the normal course of events,
so the answer is "no".
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker I wonder if
the hon. Prime Minister would permit me a
supplementary now since I have received his
epistle.
Mr. Speaker: Not until after the hon. mem-
ber has completed his series of questions to
the Prime Minister.
26
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Bullbrook: I am sorry, I thought my
colleague was finished.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Mu-
nicipal Affairs): The hon. member was wish-
ful.
Mr. Sargent: Supplementary to this, in the
Throne Speech it said "full disclosure". We
are asking for a full disclosure in an outside
audit. Will the Prime Minister go along and
back up the Throne Speech in this regard
then?
Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member any
further questions?
Mr. Sargent: Yes, I have, but he should
answer the supplementary question.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will realize
that supplementary questions are answered
only at discretion.
Mr. Sargent: He has no heart.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member
would go on to his next question.
Mr. Sargent: Another question along the
same line: Will the government then call an
immediate probe into the ten per cent in-
crease of the Ontario Hydro this year?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, I will not.
Mr. Sargent: That is all. I have some fur-
ther questions but—
Mr. Speaker: Only to the Prime Minister.
The hon. member for Sarnia.
Mr. Bullbrook: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
am wondering if I would be in a position to
advise the people of Sarnia that their council
will be permitted a delegation before the
Prime Minister before there is a designation
of the area by the Ontario Water Resources
Commission?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, there are a
whole series of meetings going on at the pres-
ent time and when these are completed and
we see what the situation is, then we can
decide whether there would be any point in
receiving a delegation from the city. Not that
I do not want to— if it would do any good I
will— but at the moment there have been no
decisions made, so it would be simply a mat-
ter of presenting a point of view, which I
believe I already have.
Mr. Bullbrook: If I might, would the Prime
Minister entertain one supplementary ques-
tion? Does he recall that in my letter of
October 30 to him, I gave him my consid-
ered opinion that, in my judgment, the dele-
gation had some points of substance to bring
to the attention of the Prime Minister and
his Cabinet colleagues?
Now, can I not have an assurance from the
government that before there is a designation
—this is of vital importance to the people in
my area— that they will at least have the
opportunity of meeting with the Prime Min-
ister?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes, certainly.
Mr. Bullbrook: All right. Thank you very
much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Except for the hon. member
for High Park, is there any other member I
have missed who has a question of the Prime
Minister?
The hon. member for High Park has the
floor for that, and for two other questions, so
that he may leave the House also.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. To the Prime Minister: Does
the government intend to reimburse Mrs.
Janet Gurman for her financial losses caused
by the government's closing of her nursing
home?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No.
Mr. Shulman: May I ask a supplementary?
Is the government giving any consideration to
any help in re-establishing Mrs. Gurman?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Shulman: I have two questions for the
Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. Will the
Attorney General intervene in the case of
Larry Botrie, whose family was refused com-
pensation as a result of his death which
occurred while he was attempting to aid the
police?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, no, there
is no intention to intervene in the matter. The
application was heard by the law compensa-
tion board and the unanimous judgment was
delivered that compensation was not allow-
able.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Attorney General
allow a supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Does the Attorney General
feel that the judgment which was handed
down was in fine with the remarks and the
NOVEMBER 20, 1968
27
intentions he expressed here in his estimates
last year?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome
the supplementary question. I think perhaps
I might be permitted to say that when this
legislation establishing the compensation board
was introduced last year, I believe, I did indi-
cate that, in our consideration of it, we con-
sidered it perhaps as a preliminary step in this
whole matter of compensation to victims of
crime or those assisting in the enforcement of
law.
I am aware, of course, of the comments of
the Hon. Mr. McRuer in his report on civil
rights. I did say, too, I believe, and I think
my remarks are in Hansard, either in my
estimates or at the time the board was set
up, to the effect that I felt the language of
the Act as it stood was wide enough to per-
mit a discretion in certain cases where a
policeman was not actually present, but this
particular case I think went beyond that.
There was no assistance to the policeman; it
was an attempt to get to a phone to call
police. So that if you opened it to that
extent, you would be really compensating a
victim of crime where many cases of that
kind would arise.
I think I am at liberty to say that the
whole matter of compensation to victims of
crime is still being reviewed as a matter of
policy of government.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I have a second question, sir: Does the
government intend to reimburse Magistrate
Gardhouse for legal expenses incurred in the
hearing into his conduct?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the an-
swer is "no." Application was made by coun-
sel for Magistrate Gardhouse after the hearing
was concluded and the application was
refused.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Attorney General
accept a supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Why?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would say this was a
matter of involving the administration of
justice in which with respect to one of those
persons who came before the inquiry— his
conduct was called in question—
I did not want to have to say this in the
House because I well realize that Magistrate
Gardhouse was found not guilty of anything
wrongful in his conduct. The commissioner,
nonetheless, did say his conduct was indis-
creet. Notwithstanding that, he was immedi-
ately re-instated by the Attorney General to
his position. But in the circumstances, it
was not felt that he should be entitled to
have his legal costs paid.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough East has the floor.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have ques-
tions of the Minister of Education. Does
The Department of Education have a stan-
dard purchasing policy for equipment that
is used in secondary schools which have
technical programmes? Is there a policy for
tendering for all such equipment? Do schools
require a course of study outlined before
such equipment is purchased?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, the policies with respect to
purchasing and tendering are the responsi-
bility, of course, of the local boards. The
way we do this is that the department pays
a grant on the receipted invoices from the
boards for technical equipment. This has
been basically under the federal-provincial
agreement until, I guess, about a year ago
last October. The manual of school business
procedures sets out the maximum approval
which the department will give for equip-
ment in any given shop.
For example, for an electrical shop the
maximum is $40,000. The department pays
a grant of 75 per cent of the boards' expen-
ditures up to that particular limit and if the
boards purchase more for any particular
shop, in excess of this limit, they pay for
the total amount themselves.
An equipment list is submitted to the
department for this approval and the list is
examined for reasonable consistency with the
course of study that it is to relate to, making
some allowance for special local needs in
some parts of the province. The suggested
course of study for technical schools is avail-
able to the boards and is used as a reference
in purchasing equipment.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, if I could ask a
supplementary question, or just ask the Minis-
ter if he would respond to my question— is
there a policy for tendering for all such equip-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Davis: The tendering is done by
the local boards. We do not tender for the
equipment. The local boards tender for the
equipment the same way they do for their
other procedures.
28
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, then I am correct
—again in the form of a question. Does the
department not require proper tendering pro-
cedures before a specific board can get a
grant from The Department of Education?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, we re-
quire the board to carry on their responsibili-
ties in the way they would for any purchase
of any equipment or school supplies, or for
construction of the facility. It is done in
most instances, of course, by way of tender
and this policy would apply throughout.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have another
question for the Minister of Education. Is it
the Minister's intention to propose (a) an
amendment to The Labour Relations Act so
that teachers are no longer excluded from the
right to bargain collectively and, (b) to intro-
duce new legislation outlining special bargain-
ing procedures for teachers and trustees, in-
cluding clauses which would first, compel
both parties to call on a provincial govern-
ment mediator if negotiations break down;
secondly, have the dispute settled by compul-
sory arbitration if the mediator fails to settle
the dispute; and third, forbid both strikes and
lockouts in this specific category?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am just
going by memory here. I do not believe we
have had any specific representations on these
two questions and the Minister is not consider-
ing introduction of amendments related to
these two questions.
Mr. Speaker: The member still has the floor.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, a third question
for the Minister of Education. How many
school trustee candidates have been nomi-
nated for the new school boards created by
Bill 44, and how many of these candidates
attended the series of conferences planned for
them during September, October and the first
two weeks of November by The Department
of Education to outline to them the role of
the new boards?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not in
a position to tell the hon. member how many
candidates have been nominated because the
election is to be held on December 2. We
have no way of knowing this at this stage. I
believe that the majority of nominations were
held perhaps on Monday of this week.
I can only say from personal experience in
attending one or two of the conferences that
were held. They were not sponsored really by
The Department of Education — they were
sponsored by the Ontario trustees council with
the co-operation of The Department of Edu-
cation and the OTF.
Really, they were initiated to a substantial
degree by the Ontario trustees council and
in attending those gatherings I gained the
impression that a number of the trustees who
were involved in the conference, and this
goes back some two to three months, were
interested in becoming candidates. Now,
whether in fact they did, I do not know.
To give the hon. member some indication,
I think the total number to date of those
who attended these conferences is in the
neighbourhood of around 950 and the major-
ity of these would be trustees. But to try and
relate how many of the 950 actually are can-
didates for the forthcoming election, I do not
know. But I hope, Mr. Speaker, the House
will permit me to refer to these elections.
The member has given me an opportunity
to make a general observation that we are
encouraged to date by the numbers of people
who are seeking election and, more import-
antly, from what little information we have,
the interest of these people in running, and
I want to make this further point: I am very
anxious that the people of this province re-
spond on December 2 and vote for these
candidates because I think it is in their own
interests to see that there is a great deal of
interest and involvement in these elections
that will take place on December 2.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a supple-
mentary question arising out of what the Min-
ister has said. Am I correct in understanding,
Mr. Speaker, that only persons who were
already school trustees could get into these
conferences, or were they open to someone
who was thinking of the possibility of becom-
ing a candidate but who was not, at that
time, a school trustee? Were these open to
these people or was it open only to people
who were already school trustees?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I say, we
did not organize these particular seminars.
The invitations as I recall, and I am only
going by memory, were initiated or developed
by the trustees council and I would just
assume that the bulk of these invitations
would go to people who were members of the
ISOC committees, and who were active
trustees. I just do not know how you would
invite them to a conference whether they have
made up their minds to run or not. I think it
would be impossible to do.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury has
the floor.
NOVEMBER 20, 1968
29
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Attorney General. Would the Attorney
General advise the House when he might be
expected to fill the office of Crown attorney
for the district of Sudbury, which office has
been vacant since July 14? When such ap-
pointment is made will the Crown attorney
for the district of Sudbury have the additional
responsibilities of acting as Crown attorney
for the districts of Parry Sound, Temaskaming
and Manitoulin?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I thought
the hon. member might have been aware that
Mr. Spencer Stewart was appointed Crown
attorney for Sudbury, I think about a week
ago. He is—
Mr. Sopha: Nobody in Sudbury knows.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well-
Mr. Sopha: He said this morning that he
does not know it. How do you like that?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am sure he knows and
he, of course, has been acting there and is
the appointed Crown attorney for Sudbury.
With respect to the other part of the ques-
tion, for the time being at least, we would
expect the Crown attorney and the assistant
Crown attorney in Sudbury to serve particu-
larly Manitoulin, at least, for the time being
and Parry Sound and some of the Temiska-
ming area.
Mr. Sopha: He is going to be a busy fellow.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: He is not going to do it
all alone as the hon. member knows. He will
have sufficient assistance to see that the work
is done and I think that I should point out
to the House that the volume of criminal
work on Manitoulin, for instance, is extremely
small. Likewise, in Parry Sound— there is one
day a week perhaps for the time being. But,
these matters are being looked at and re-
viewed and the House may rest assured the
Crown attorney will have sufficient assistance
to see that the work is done properly.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a sup-
plementary question? May I invite the Attor-
ney General to inform the Sudbury Star, a
loyal supporter of this government, forthwith
that the Crown attorney has been appointed?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, just on
that point, I may say that the hon. member
for Nickel Belt at least received the informa-
tion and I know that the Sudbury Star has
been informed.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peter-
borough.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Speaker, in view of the long discussions we
have had here about committees and the
mythology of the Prime Minister in regard
to what motivates them, I think, possibly, this
question should be addressed to the member
for Carleton East (Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence).
However, I shall have to address it to the
Minister of Education. Will the Minister refer
to the Hall-Dennis report, or at least encour-
age the chairman and members of the educa-
tion committee, to refer to the Hall-Dennis
report early in the session and encourage the
committee to hear witnesses forthwith?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member will recall in the Throne Speech, it
was suggested that there should be, and will
be, consideration of the Hall-Dennis report.
I personally would have no objection whatso-
ever to the committee considering the report.
I am not sure, however, of the phraseology,
"the calling of witnesses". I am sure there
are many people who would like to appear
and give their views and so on, but I do
not know that one would wish to refer to
them as witnesses per se. I think they are
people wishing to make a contribution and
this, perhaps, could be a very excellent way
of coming to grips with some of the sugges-
tions in the Hall-Dennis report. I have no
objections whatsoever.
I should point out to the member for
Scarborough East while I am on my feet—
and it is related to this, Mr. Speaker— when
he was concerned about my lack of appear-
ance at the education committee during the
discussion of Bill 44. This was mentioned to
one or two of his colleagues and one or two
other members opposite, and the feeling was
that the Minister, during these presentations,
should perhaps absent himself so that they
would not feel at all inhibited, as some of
them did.
Mr. Bullbrook: The Minister never feels
inhibited.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, well I did, Mr.
Speaker, I recall very well attending all those
when the final legislation was finished and
I was even here the last two or three weeks
of the session when I was going to discuss
some other matters with the member for
Scarborough East, but I could not find him.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that answers the
question.
Mr. Pitman: I think, Mr. Speaker, it more
than answers the question. I wonder if I
could ask the Minister whether he would be
good enough to send a copy of his remarks
30
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to the member for Carleton East so that we
might get this education committee started,
and so that we might thereby get this report
before the Legislature.
A second question to the Minister, Mr.
Speaker. Can the Minister indicate whether
the Keiller Mackay commission on religious
teaching in public schools will be brought
before the House during this session?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would
answer, hopefully, "yes"-
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask a
supplementary question: Perhaps the Minister
will not remember, but this was the first ques-
tion that I asked him the first day of the last
session, and I am wondering whether he can
explain the reason why there is such a long
delay on this matter of such great importance?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the
answer to the question is rather obvious. The
hon. member has answered it himself; it is a
matter of great importance and it has taken
the committee a great deal of time to listen
to all those who wish to make representations.
I would think, not being a member of the
committee, that it will be one of the most
difficult reports that any group of individuals
have been asked to write and I do know they
have been working very diligently.
As I related to the House at the last
session, they did run into delay because of
the passing away of two members of the
committee which was most unfortunate, and
all that I can say on this occasion is that,
hopefully, it will be here for consideration
in this session.
Mr. Pitman: As a supplementary question,
will the Minister have this report passed on
once again to the education committee? I
see the member for Carleton East is now in
his seat.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think
what we do with the report really should
wait until we get the report. Then we can
have some discussion as to how we might
treat it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. Attorney General. Will
the Attorney General advise what discip-
linary action or corrective measures have
been taken by the Ontario Provincial Police
relevant to the officer or officers who had
issued a directive establishing a quota sys-
tem of summonses, or the laying of a certain
number of charges?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, if you
will pardon me for a moment, I had this
question before me and I have been occu-
pied with something else. I had considered
it of considerable importance and I have
prepared an answer to this question.
I would say that the officer who issued the
particular document has been interviewed by
the commissioner, interviewed immediately,
and I am sure that matter has been made
clear to him. But, Mr. Speaker I must dis-
agree with the principles stated by the hon.
member for Sarnia which he attributes to
the nature of that directive. The document
in its complete context is based upon the
Ontario Provincial Police programme of
selective traffic enforcement, which is not,
and never has been, anything like a so-called
quota system.
It is a programme based upon accident
statistics designed to guide policemen in
traffic law enforcement so that appropriate
attention can be given to the enforcement
of the traffic laws that appear to be closely
involved with traffic fatalities suffered on
our highways.
In the particular case that generated this
question, Mr. Speaker, little publicity has
been given to the fact that the Ontario Pro-
vincial Police were directing their minds to
the local and difficult situation in the inter-
ests of the travelling public, and that in the
area concerned in 1968, from the date of
the directive, 11 people have been killed in
accidents. Eleven lives in those violent
traffic accidents— that was against the statis-
tic of six people in the same period last
year, an increase of almost 100 per cent.
In the light of those facts, Mr. Speaker,
the police were not pursuing a quota system
and all that that suggests, but stressing to
the police officers that these were selective
methods of law enforcement to stop the
slaughter on the highways. I think they
would be grossly remiss, I may say, if they
did not stress the need for that type of law
enforcement.
Mr. Bullbrook: I am wondering, Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. Attorney General would
entertain a supplementary question in this
connection? Is the Attorney General aware
of a statement purportedly made by the OPP
assistant commissioner Jack Whitty, and re-
ported in the Toronto Star of November 12,
1968, as follows:
Whitty said one detachment officer,
whom he refused to name, issued a direc-
tive that more charges were required
from his staff.
NOVEMBER 20, 1968
31
Now, sir, my first supplementary: Is the
Minister familiar with this? Second, does his
department agree in principle with directives
of that nature?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am not familiar with
it, Mr. Speaker. I may have seen the article
but I do not recall it. As I take it— as it
was read by the hon. member— he said that
one detachment superintendent or officer had
required more charges?
I think this still goes along with what I
pointed out, that the effort of the Ontario
Provincial Police was directed to the par-
ticular area of traffic law enforcement where
they were concerned, as in this case, with the
great increase in fatalities. It is not a case
of just going out and laying any kind of a
charge, but of seeing to the enforcement of
the law where it relates to traffic fatalities on
the highway.
Mr. Bullbrook: Is the Attorney General
assuring this House that the Ontario Provin-
cial Police, either in its hierarchy or its
officers, at no time directs the officers of that
department to issue more charges just for
the sake of charges? That is the assurance
I am interested in.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think I could give
that assurance— that is as I understand it
from the commissioner of the Ontario Pro-
vincial Police.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has other
questions?
Mr. Bullbrook: I do not have any further
questions.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury East.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): I have
a question for the Minister of Education.
Does the Minister intend to amend The
School Administration Act to include a pro-
vision for a transfer review board in each
jurisdiction?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there has
been no decision on this matter as yet. The
matter is still being discussed and will be
again within the next four or five minutes.
Some members of the OTF have been wait-
ing since four o'clock to see the Minister;
they are now in the gallery and I am sure
on your behalf, Mr. Speaker, we would like
to welcome them here. This is just how
recent the discussions are.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex
South.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a few questions, the first to
the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Does
the hon. Minister have, under review, the
policy whereby severances of land in rural
areas from a parent to a member of the
immediate family are to be changed? Will
such allowances be continued if the party
in question is to work on the farm; and
further will this policy be changed if the
party is working in another endeavour and
only wishes to reside on the lot so severed?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, ad-
ministrative policies are always under review
and, because of the importance of equity in
dealing with citizens who want to build
homes for their families, the policies relating
to the subdivision of land and the granting of
consents is kept under particularly careful
review. The main concerns are to ensure a
good living environment, to avoid unduly
high cost of services and to prevent urban
sprawl from disfiguring the countryside, in-
terfering with the agricultural economy and
reducing the efficiency and safety of our
roads.
In carrying out these policies, leniency has
been shown where a single new lot is being
created to accommodate a farmer who is
retiring and whose son is taking over the
operation of the farm. The same applies
where a farmer's son who is helping to run
the family farm decides to many and set up
his own home on the farm. There is no
present intention of departing from this prac-
tice in bona fide cases.
I think question two is answered in that.
Question three: As indicated, the current
policy is to encourage residential development
to locate in an area best suited to it and to
avoid urban sprawl.
A family relationship in itself will be un-
likely to justify departure from this policy.
However, if the hon. member has any specific
problems in this connection, I would be glad
to have a look at them.
Mr. Paterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and
Food. Does the hon. Minister intend to intro-
duce, in this session, an amendment to The
Farm Products Marketing Act that will make
permissive, regulations concerning acreage
control, and provisions similar to those now
pertaining to tobacco allowable on other agri-
cultural products?
Second, is the hon. Minister negotiating
with the province of Quebec and the federal
32
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
government to minimize the imports of agri-
cultural products that may flow into our prov-
ince if our producers place voluntary limita-
tions on the volume of their productions?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, first of all
I would advise the hon. member that he
would have to wait and see in reply to ques-
tion (a). With regard to matter (b) it is a
purely hypothetical situation. I would say
this, that it is a matter of constant concern
to our department and to myself personally.
I have had many discussions with the Minis-
ter of Agriculture in the province of Quebec
as well as with the federal government's De-
partment of Agriculture, at ministerial level,
concerning the problem of agricultural com-
modities flowing into the province of Ontario
where there are now types of mandatory con-
trol on production of those commodities.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-
Bruce; does he need copies or has he his
copy?
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): No, Mr.
Speaker, I think I have the wording fairly-
pretty close here. I have two questions, both
directed to the Minister of Agriculture and
Food.
Why is the cost of commercial fertilizer so
high in Ontario in comparison to the United
States prices, as reported by the Federation
of Agriculture?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, Mr. Speaker, we
have not had time to look into this matter
entirely. It is within the terms of reference
of the farm . income committee which, I
assume, has already given that matter con-
sideration. It is certainly within the terms of
reference of the present farm income commit-
tee which has been designated to investigate
all aspects of the corn industry.
I would assume it to be likely that farmers
will avail themselves of the suggestion made
by the federal Minister of Agriculture when
he suggested to certain people that they
should take advantage of the opportunities to
purchase their fertilizer in the United States
cheaper than they can in Canada according
to their figures. There is no import restric-
tion and there is no duty involved.
Mr. Gaunt: The other question, Mr.
Speaker: Has the Minister referred the speci-
fic problem of the high cost of importing
British and European made tractors into Can-
ada, which was brought to the attention of
the public at the annual meeting of the On-
tario Federation of Agriculture, to the farm
machinery committee?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the
Ontario farm machinery committee has a
great deal of information concerning this
price differential and I would say that, as well
as other matters pertaining to this item that
have been brought to our attention, some
Ontario farmers, I understand, have already
availed themselves of the opportunity of
bringing in tractors from the United Kingdom
by passing the normal channels.
I understand the Ontario Federation of
Agriculture has compiled a document outlin-
ing how this can be accomplished.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port
Arthur has the floor.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Is
the Minister prepared to review his decision
that a plebiscite should not be held at the
Lakehead to consider the Hardy report be-
cause of recent developments concerning the
future of Fort William city and Neebing
township?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The answer, Mr.
Speaker, is "no".
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, if I might be per-
mitted a supplementary question. Does this
mean that the door is completely closed on
the chance for the people in the Lakehead
cities, who would be affected by amalgama-
tion as proposed by the Hardy report, to vote
on this matter? Is the door closed?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have answered the
question.
Mr. Knight: I did not hear the Minister.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister is not accepting
a supplementary question on the basis that
he has already answered the question.
Mr. Knight: He has already answered it.
The door is closed. Thank you very much.
I have a question now, Mr. Speaker, for
the hon. Minister of Health. It is in three
parts.
Part one: Is there a shortage of qualified
personnel who are graduates of Bachelor
of Science in nursing in the province? Would
the Minister like all three questions, Mr.
Speaker?
Part two: What is the salary cut proposed
for 1969 for new nursing teachers who have
completed the Bachelor of. Science in nurs-
ing programmes?
Part three: Is the Minister prepared to
institute an attractive bonus system to encour-
NOVEMBER 20, 1968
33
age more university graduates to enter nurs-
ing service as recommended by the Registered
Xurses Association of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I am
somewhat at a loss to understand the first
part of the hon. member's question. Any
holder of the Bachelor of Science degree in
nursing is, I presume, automatically qualified
or she would not have that degree.
However, I think I know what the hon.
member is getting at. There is a shortage
of these people; 5.4 per cent of the almost
38,000 nurses actively engaged in nursing
hold a Bachelor of Science degree in nursing.
This amounts to just a little over 2,000 and
we could use a great many more of them.
OHSC till the present time has— in reply
to part two of the question— approved a
salary differential or educational increment
of $80 per month in recognition of the
B.Sc.N. degree, and this is being provided for
teachers in nursing. Nurses in nursing ser-
vices in hospital with a similar degree, how-
ever, received an educational increment of
only $50 per month and recently these two
groups were equated and an educational
increment of $55 per month granted to both:
that is reducing those who were engaged in
teaching in nursing by $25 per month. OHSC
this year proposed an increase in the educa-
tional bonus of $5 per month for the nurse in
hospital service who holds the bachelor de-
gree, thus equating the increment to those in
teaching positions in nursing. Both nurses
hold the same academic qualifications and it
has been believed, for some time, that they
should both be paid the same salary incre-
ment in respect of this.
To number three: Two years ago, The
Department of Health instituted a very
attractive bursary system to encourage more
nurses to take advanced training in all
branches of nursing, but with particular
emphasis on clinical nursing. We believe the
educational bonus as just outlined is a reason-
ably attractive system, joined to the bursary
system that is provided for in preparation
for higher responsibility.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.
Mr. Singer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Attorney General. What
action does the Attorney General intend to
take with respect to Chief James Mackey,
the chief of the Metropolitan Toronto Police,
and his admission on November 14, that his
officers have seized privately owned wire
tapping equipment during the previous two
weeks— and the question should have gone
on to say, that he admitted he had no
authority to so act.
Hon, Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I do not
propose to take any action. The situation is
that the material seized was, I think, four or
five instances over a recent period of time
where the Bell Telephone employees reported
to the chief, or police authorities, that they
had found electronic devices attached to
their telephone lines.
They turned the material over to the
police and reported the matter to them.
There is no evidence and no way of finding
out, at the moment at least, who this belonged
to and, of course, nobody is coming forward
to claim it. So it is just a matter of these
things being reported— equipment which has
been delivered to the police. I think there
is nothing indicated that we should do at
the moment.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary
question. Is the Attorney General not shocked
when the chief of police of the largest city in
this province says "we have no authority to
act as we did?" I would be shocked if I was
thi' Attorney General.
Mr. MacDonald: He has no authority—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not know as I
agree. I mean, I did not read what the chief
of police said. There is a Telephone Act-
Mr. Singer: I am talking about the chief of
police.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am reciting the facts
of the matter.
This was equipment found attached to
telephone lines— found by telephone employ-
ees. It was turned over to the police. We
do not know whose it is. Nobody is going
to come forward to claim it. We can con-
tinue to investigate. It is against T,he Tele-
phone Act, but what is to be done?
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared
to leave it, but what the Attorney General
says is not in accordance with what the
chief is quoted as having said: "We picked
up five bugs in the last two weeks."
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, if I must
pursue this.
In the last session, in public, in representa-
tions made to Ottawa we have requested, we
have suggested, we have urged that there be
a law against electronic eavesdropping, and
that some provision be made for the police to
do it under strict control. Now, if that law
were passed— and I understand the Minister
34
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of Justice has made a statement he will pro-
duce such legislation, which I had also sug-
gested should be national or federal, one law
across the country. When we have that, then
the chief of police will have the law he is
perhaps looking for. But in the circumstances
I recited, I do not know there is anything to
be done.
Mr. Singer: One can only conclude the
Attorney General is not concerned about
chiefs of police breaking the law.
Mr. Speaker, I have another question for
the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Would the Minister state the position of his
department in the manner— this question is
worded— of the vacancy, the anticipated vac-
ancy in aldermanic representation of ward 3
in the city of Toronto?
And the second part of the same question:
Has the Minister received any resolution from
the city of Toronto council to suggest that
there should be provision in The Municipal
Act to permit a by-election to be held in this
particular case and in any similar situation
in the future and, if so, is he prepared to
take any action?
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member
would ask his question in the terms in which
he submitted it and, if he did not add a
further question when he submitted it this
morning, he should not do so now, except
by way of supplementary question.
The last question should not be taken by
the Minister except as a supplementary ques-
tion.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: In reply to the first
question, Mr. Speaker, I would just say that
as far as I am aware there is no vacancy for
aldermen in the city of Toronto at the present
time.
As far as the second question is concerned,
the answer is "yes".
Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister
of Labour-
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, with apology to
my colleague, by way of a supplementary
question, what action is the Minister pre-
pared to take in answer to the resolution that
he has received?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I received the resolu-
tion and I have written to them.
Mr. Singer: Is the Minister prepared to act
on what they recommend?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: That matter is public
knowledge. It has been quoted in the press.
Mr. Singer: Well, I am asking the Min-
ister here.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Does the member
want me to put it on record here?
Mr. Singer: Would the Minister tell us
whether he is prepared to act or not?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am prepared to act.
Mr. Singer: Is the Minister going to act in
this session?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have indicated so to
the city of Toronto.
Mr. Singer: Then why did the Minister not
say so, instead of shadow-boxing?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is in the paper.
Does the member want everything repeated
ten times?
Mr. Singer: What is the Minister hiding?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, why
does he not answer the questions intelligently
and then we would not get into this mess.
Mr. Singer: That is what I was asking for,
Mr. Speaker, an intelligent answer.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I just
wanted to know. He added to the question
all the way through it.
The second question, "Has the Minister
received any resolution from Toronto?". My
answer was "yes".
Why does not the member ask what my
answer was, instead of going through all this
gibberish and then coming up with innumer-
able supplementary questions?
An hon. member: And then he accused the
Minister of shadow-boxing.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, who is shadow-
boxing who?
Mr. Speaker: Order! Perhaps the members
will allow the member for Windsor- Walker-
ville, who has been very patient, to ask his
questions now.
Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a question of the Minister of Labour
and it reads as follows:
What steps is his department taking to
assist the one thousand or so workers of the
NOVEMBER 20, 1968
35
Ford Motor Company, Windsor, who will be
on a temporary lay-off, which, for some, may
last as long as one year? And, by the way,
this lay-off will affect 451 people next week.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, the answer
to the question of the hon. member for
Windsor- Walkerville :
The department, through its training serv-
ices, will be supporting and co-operating with
the federal manpower department in whatever
steps it may take in response to the situation
in Windsor. From the announcement that I
received, this contemplated conversion will
start next May.
Mr. B. Newman: If I may put a supple-
mentary question, is not the department at
present actively working on some type of pro-
gramme for the 451 that will be laid off next
week?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, the matter of
451 people had not come to my attention
previously. I received notification of the con-
version two days ago.
Mr. B. Newman: I will send over to the
Minister the newspaper clipping that specific-
ally indicates the numbers that will be laid
off. And a lot of these, Mr. Speaker, do not
qualify for supplementary unemployment in-
surance benefits, so they may find themselves
severely handicapped.
A second question of the Minister: What
steps is his department taking in an attempt
to settle the three-month-old strike at the
Dominion Forge Company in Windsor?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, my officials
are keeping in close touch with the company
so that we can render all assistance possible
to them, and we have done this over a period
of time.
Mr. B. Newman: Has the Minister not been
called in by both labour and management in
an attempt to settle this?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I think I
indicated that to you; we have been in close
touch with them constantly on this.
Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Peacock: Mr. Speaker, I have a point
of order which I have been holding on to for
some time until the end of the question
period, but I would like to put it to you now.
I felt myself to have been somewhat misled
—and perhaps you yourself were— by the ex-
planation given during our earlier discussion
on the motion to establish a committee on
housing and urban affairs, to the effect that
the absence of the Minister of Trade and
Development was due to his preparations for
a trip to Trenton. It has just come to my
attention, Mr. Speaker, that in fact he is on
his way to preside over the inauguration of
the Quaker Oats Company's entry into the
frozen baked goods business. He will be
participating in the enjoyment of cream puffs
from a plant financed perhaps in part by his
agency, instead of being in his place to deal
with the business of housing when we were
talking about it.
Mr. Speaker: It is unfortunate that the
hon. member did not accept the explanation
which I was able to give of the Minister's
absence, which I believe was quite correct.
It has been elaborated on, of course, by the
hon. member.
At this time I would like to recognize a
distinguished member of the House of Repre-
sentatives of the Dominion of New Zealand,
Mr. John Luxton, who is in Mr. Speaker's
gallery, who, with his wife is returning from
the Commonwealth Parliamentary Associa-
tion gathering held in Nassau a short time
ago.
Orders of the day.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will call the first order,
the motion will be moved by the member
for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Belanger) and
seconded by the member for Fort William
(Mr. Jessiman).
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: I just wish to explain to the
members that I did not wish to bring them
back at 2:30 tomorrow, and I had forgotten
the exact wording of the Prime Minister's
motion.
The House adjourned at 5:40 o'clock, p.m.
No. 3
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Thursday, November 21, 1968
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 21, 1968.
Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. McKeough, first reading 39
Head office for Ontario Hydro, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon 39
Ontario's succession duty laws, question to Mr. White, Mr. Nixon 40
Toronto International Airport expansion, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Kennedy and
Mr. Ben 40
International bridges, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Bullbrook 41
Minister's committee re training secondary school teachers, questions to Mr. Davis,
Mr. T. Reid 43
School building costs, question to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid 44
Control of sale and use of firearms, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 44
Persons arrested for minor offences, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 45
Justices of the peace, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 46
Tenants' rights, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 47
Loans by Ontario development corporation, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Sargent 47
Tenants in Green Meadows subdivision, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Worton 48
Subsidizing research on effects of noise, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. B. Newman 48
Decision by Magistrate McMahon, question to Mr. Haskett, Mr. B. Newman 48
"Dimensions" magazine, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. Innes 49
Standard form of OHC lease, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Singer 49
Larry Botrie case, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Singer 49
Public beaches on Lake Erie shoreline, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Breithaupt 50
Clerical work at Perth county jail, questions to Mr. Grossman, Mr. Edighoffer 50
Throne Speech debate, Mr. Belanger, Mr. Jessiman 51
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Jessiman, agreed to 66
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 66
39
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 3 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome guests from the following schools:
In the east gallery, students from Wilcox
public school, Toronto; and in the west gal-
lery from Georgian Bay secondary school,
Meaford.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE MUNICIPAL ACT
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Munic-
ipal Affairs) moves first reading of bill in-
tituled, An Act to amend The Municipal Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, section
1 is a technical change; section 2 is the main
reason for the bill. It straightens away the
hours of voting on December 2 next, along
with Bill 44. I sent a memorandum to all
members of the Legislature, or a copy of the
memorandum about this, and our notice to
bring this bill in.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, there does not seem to be much
competition on this side of the floor, but I do
have a question for the Premier (Mr. Robarts).
Does Ontario Hydro status require it to get
government approval before proceeding with
its announced plan to build a $28 million
head office to be located on the corner of
University Avenue and College Street and to
be completed in 1971? And if so, has the
government granted, or is it considering, such
approval?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, section 38, subsection 1 of The
Power Commission Act gives the Ontario
Hydro Electric Power Commission authority'
to acquire land and erect any buildings it
Thursday, November 21, 1968
may deem necessary for its own purposes,
and this can be done without any reference
to the Lieutenant-Governor in council. There-
fore, the answer to the first part of your ques-
tion is "no". No sanction of this government
is necessary for Hydro to proceed.
However, the member might be interested
to know that no final decision has yet been
reached by Hydro to go ahead with the build-
ing. They have owned the property since
1963. I am told that approval has been given
for the complete design and working draw-
ings, and no approval beyond that stage has
been granted, but the building is being
planned.
Hydro is presently paying out about $1.2
million a year in rentals for accommodation
for their headquarters staff and, of course,
this is the staff they propose to accommodate
in this building. Their plans are related to
vvli.it is foreseen as the expansion of Hydro
up until, I believe, about 1990. This building,
as it is being planned, will be larger than
their immediate needs and the surplus space
will be rented out until it is required by
Hydro itself.
Members will know that our power require-
ments from Hydro are increasing at the rate
of about ten per cent a year, which means in
the next ten years they have to reproduce
everything that we have been able to create
in the history of Hydro to date. They fore-
see the need for this expansion and that is the
basis of the planning of this building.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier
would permit a supplementary question.
Does he believe that that particular plot of
ground in the heart of the capital city should
be used for this purpose rather than directing
the head office to be located outside the
Metropolitan area?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I think, in
the first place, I can only have a general
opinion on the subject because I am not par-
ticularly conversant with the administrative
problems. I do know however that they have
a very large head office staff. They feel that
it should be in this location, close to govern-
ment. I do not see any reason why this site
40
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
would not be suitable for them. This prop-
erty is going to be used for offices. I suppose,
if they do not build an office there, somebody
else will and Hydro has installations of all
kinds, sorts, sizes and shapes scattered all over
this province and—
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): In other
words, the Premier was going to—
Hon. Mr. Rob arts: There is that great
brain at work again.
Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to under-
stand the hon. member's interjections, but
as I say, Hydro certainly has not concen-
trated its building in the city of Toronto. I
do not know what the Toronto members
think about this eternal running down of
the capital city that takes place here.
Certainly, Hydro has a great number of
installations in many, many different parts
of the city and, if they think, in the interests
of the efficiency of the operation of Hydro,
their head office should be adjacent to
Queen's Park, the centre of government and
to the financial institutions of our province,
I frankly do not see any objection to it.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier
would permit a further supplementary ques-
tion.
I can see the validity of his point in having
them close to the financial institutions be-
cause they are going to have a lot to do with
them, but they are autonomous of govern-
ment based on the Prime Minister's own
comment. So, I would ask the Prime Minister,
if in fact they decide to go ahead, would he
use his authority, through the vice-chairman,
to postpone this decision until the present
fiscal nightmares recede?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I think
that is inherent in what Hydro is doing.
What they are doing is planning the build-
ing. They have not let any contracts. But
it will take some considerable time to design
it and the only control we have as a govern-
ment, over the operation of Hydro is, of
course, that we have to secure— we have to
guarantee-
Mr. Nixon: We back every dollar they
borrow.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We have to guarantee
every dollar they borrow. And while we are
in this debate, which is far from the ques-
tion, I can certainly assure the hon. members
of this House that the borrowing policies,
practices and the timing of borrowing by
Hydro is very closely co-ordinated and
worked out with the Treasurer and Treasury
officials here. Because, if we are to have an
orderly financing of the needs of this govern-
ment and of Hydro, we need a high degree
of co-operation.
This is what we have been trying to get
with the federal government but have been
unable to do so. But within those matters
that we control, I can assure you there is
a very high degree of co-operation.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the hon. Minister of Revenue (Mr. White).
Is the Minister reviewing Ontario's suc-
cession duty laws with a view to implement-
ing the same exemptions to spouses as
recently granted at the federal level?
Hon J. H. White (Minister of Revenue):
Mr. Speaker, all tax statutes are under review
in the light of the Smith committee and the
select committee reports.
Mr. Nixon: Oh, he is going to be a great
Minister; he qualifies!
I am sure that such intensive review is
necessary after the previous jurisdiction
under the Treasurer has just been accom-
plished. We have to think of something to
keep the new Minister busy and this might
perhaps be as useful as anything else.
I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if the
Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr. Brunelle),
who is now in his seat could answer this
question: Can the Minister report overall
utilization figures for the provincial parks
for 1968 compared to those figures for 1967?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
leader of the Opposition, may I say that we
are in the process of completing these figures
and hope to have them available soon. We
will be very pleased to supply a copy to
his office.
Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): In view
of the disastrous effects on people and prop-
erty in the proximity of Malton airport, if
the presently proposed expansion takes place,
would the Prime Minister inform the House
if the province can do anything to insure
reconsideration by the federal government of
this totally unacceptable scheme?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hura-
ber has a similar question, which perhaps he
will now place?
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
My question of the hon. Prime Minister is:
As the Ontario spokesman for 1.5 million
people who will be adversely affected by
NOVEMBER 21, 1968
41
the extension of the Toronto International
Airport, what is the Premier doing to have
such an extension halted and, in the alterna-
tive, sir, promote the construction of a new
international airport at Camp Borden with
connecting GO transit lines to Toronto?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to both these questions, I would say first it
is my understanding that the federal govern-
ment is not bound by our zoning by-laws.
Their powers of expropriation override any
provincial power, and they are not bound by
an open by-law. Against that background
and the fact that international airports are
entirely within the jurisdiction of the federal
government, anything we do must be against
that background of facts.
I have been asked to meet a group of
ratepayers who will be affected and I pro-
pose to meet them. In the meantime, the
government is looking very closely at all the
various facts being produced by this situa-
tion. We are concerned with the living con-
ditions of the people who reside in that area.
Land values would be affected, as well as the
comfort of living. I can assure you we intend
to look after their interests in the best way
that we can.
At the moment, there are at least five de-
partments in this government who are inter-
ested in this whole proposition: The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs; The Department
of Highways; The Department of Health as
far as pollution and noise, if I may put it
that way, are concerned; The Department of
Energy and Resources Management; and The
Department of Transport.
We have been approached by officials of
The Department of Transport of the federal
government and we are in consultation with
them. We are in the position, now, of trying
to sort out the ramifications of the proposals
the federal government has made. As far as
I am aware no final decisions have been
made. The whole matter is being investigated
and we are gathering up all the information
being produced from various sources, and
advanced by various interested groups.
We have been approached by the federal
government and we intend to sit down with
them and discuss the whole matter. Then we
will decide wrhat position we, as a govern-
ment, will take. I make these comments
against the background of the fact that it is
a federal responsibility. That their jurisdiction
in expropriation, in zoning by-laws and in
land-use policies, overrides that of the prov-
ince or the municipalities involved.
Mr. Ben: Will the Prime Minister accept a
supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes.
Mr. Ben: Do I take it then that, aside from
the concern expressed by five departments,
the Prime Ministers government has made
no statement to the federal government ex-
pressing its objection to the proposed expan-
sion of the Malton International Airport?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I can only
repeat what I have said. We have made no
positive statement that we, as a government,
object to what the federal government is pro-
posing. What we are doing at this stage
is sitting down with the federal government
to examine all the ramifications and effects of
what they are proposing. Those proposals
may be changed; they may be altered; we do
not know. Certainly, I am informed that no
final decision has been made by the federal
gavernment.
In other words, the whole proposition is
presently being examined and we are taking
part in that examination to see how it affects
the interests of this government in the various
departments I have mentioned. For instance,
The Department of Highways must, of
course, be very interested because of the
highways we have built to provide service to
Malton. We do not know whether they will
be adequate, for instance, if this expansion
takes place.
In addition to that, there are the interests
which I believe the two hon. members who
asked the questions are trying to put forward,
and there are the interests of the residents
about the area who will be affected, and of
course we are very concerned in their in-
terests in this matter. That is why I am mak-
ing arrangements to meet with them so that
they may tell this government their exact
points of view. Every time you pick up a
newspaper there is another report from some-
body dealing with this matter. I do not think
all the information that will be available
about the matter is necessarily before us at
the moment. When we have all these opinions
—and even before that— we will confer with
the federal government and then decide what
our position is.
Mr. Ben: The Minister is saying there is
no foresight on the part of the government.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia
has the floor.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the hon. Premier.
42
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Would the Premier advise whether his
government has established a policy relative
to uniform municipal taxation with respect
to international bridges, as mentioned by the
Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. McKeough)
to the private bills committee of this House
during the first session?
If the answer to the above is yes, would
the Premier advise whether his government
contemplates proposing legislation in this
session with respect thereto?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not know that I
am exactly aware of what the Minister of
Municipal Affairs said to the private bills
committee of the House; on the other hand,
I can tell the member where the matter
stands at the moment.
As I explained to the House last year, in
Ontario we have about every form of arrange-
ment in international bridges that the mind
of man has been able to devise. It is once
again a split jurisdiction. The federal govern-
ment is involved in international bridges be-
cause of their international aspects. We are
involved, of course, because the Canadian
end of the bridge will be in some munici-
pality or in some part of the province of
Ontario. I have been in communication with
the former Prime Minister of Canada, and
the present Prime Minister of Canada, and
we are in the process of instituting studies
which will cover not just the one bridge the
hon. member who asked the question happens
to be interested in— and I know the problem
in his riding— but we have a whole series of
international bridges extending across the St.
Lawrence River, the Niagara River, the De-
troit River and the Fort Frances— is it the
St. Mary's River? — and the river at Fort
Frances, in any event.
So we find it necessary to take a rather
broad approach to this problem. These
studies are not complete, and therefore I
would have to answer the member's first
question in the negative. We have not yet
established a policy relative to uniform
municipal taxation. On the other hand, I
would say that our studies in this regard are
proceeding and I hope that we will have a
solution which will be satisfactory to all the
various interests involved.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier
would permit, recognizing that his obligation
is a broad one— I suggest most respectfully,
would he not agree that it is a rather lengthy
one? In this respect, Mr. Speaker, the Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs at the time of the
presentation of my private bill last year, ad-
vised that the government had this under
contemplation at that time. I wrote to the
Premier some three months ago—
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member is plac-
ing a supplementary question, not making a
speech. If he would place his question
please.
Mr. Bullbrook: I thought that I properly
premised this speech, sir, would you not
agree?
In essence, Mr. Speaker, am I able to
assure the people of my riding that there
will be some legislation instituted in this
session relative to their particular problem?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I could
not possibly give him such an undertaking.
As I point out, this government does not
have control over this situation.
It took 30 or 40 years, at least, to build up
this legal tangle involving international
bridges and I do not think it can be expected
to be solved in six months.
It is a very complex matter indeed and it
involves some states in the United States.
It involves the federal government of the
United States. It involves the government of
Canada. It involves the government of the
province of Ontario. It involves certain
municipalities and it involves certain private
companies that were given permission to
operate international bridges at various times
in the distant past. I have no magic wand
that I can wave to cut through all the legal
complexities that surround the issue.
I think you can assure the people of your
riding that we are very aware of their prob-
lem and we will look after their interests as
this matter unfolds.
Mr. Bullbrook: I have a question, Mr.
Speaker, for the hon. Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart).
Would the Attorney General advise the
term of appointment of one Bruce Goulet as
a member of the police commission of the
city of North Bay?
Two, would the Attorney General advise
whether this man's appointment is the begin-
ning of a policy by the department of
appointing other than magistrates and judges
to the police commissions?
Three, would the Attorney General advise
of Mr. Goulet's qualifications for such office?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, the question comes in three
parts, making actually three different ques-
tions.
NOVEMBER 21, 1968
43
The appointment of a member of the police
commission— board of police commissioners— is
at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor in
council and they may serve for one year, two
years, three years or longer.
That is the first part of the question.
The second part inquires, Mr. Speaker, if
this is the beginning of a policy by the depart-
ment of appointing other than magistrates. I
would like first, Mr. Speaker, to point out that
the Minister is not called upon to answer a
question as to government policy in my view
and I think that is clear in the rules. How-
ever, I would not refuse to answer it on that
ground.
Actually there have been a number of
appointments of persons other than magis-
trates to police commissions. In particular,
I recall in my own city of Sault Ste. Marie
four years ago, in addition to the mayor and
the district judge, a citizen who happened to
be an ex-mayor was appointed. He is still
serving. That is about four years ago. That
ix)licy— if it is a policy— has been adopted in
a number of other municipalities.
I think perhaps I might enlarge a little bit
upon that. The Police Act used to call for the
appointment of the head of a municipality, a
district or county judge and a magistrate, so
that there were three persons. I just do nnt
recall the date of the amendment which
changed the requirement that it be a magis-
trate to "one other person," but it was four
or five years ago at least. We have not been
bound, therefore, to appoint magistrates, and
have l>een exercising the latitude which that
amendment gave to appoint other citizens.
Generally in that regard we look for a citizen
who has had experience perhaps in municipal
affairs or business affairs, a citizen of char-
acter, one who is knowledgeable and who has
the respect of the citizenry.
We have been following that quite gener-
ally, but I would not say that we have aban-
doned entirely the option to appoint a
magistrate. In many commissions magistrates
have served for years and have served with
great distinction and have offered great serv-
ice to their communities. I think generally we
have been moving from the magistrate to the
citizen.
As to the third question about the qualifi-
cations of Mr. Goulet, I have not had time to
get that information but I would be glad to
get it and perhaps I might present it to the
member. I take it it is for his own informa-
tion. I would be glad to do that.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, or
what I believe is a point of order, sir, and it
involves a sort of two-pronged question to you.
1. I wonder if you could inform the House
if there is any procedure whereby a mem-
ber's seat could be declared vacant by the
House due to a rather cavalier attitude re-
specting the duties and responsibilities of that
member in attending the proceedings of this
House?
2. I was wondering if you had given the
members of any particular group of this
House leave of absence to absent themselves
from the House, because I draw your atten-
tion, sir, to rule 23 of the rules of this House,
and I quote:
Every member is bound to attend the
service of the House unless leave of ab-
sence has been given by the House.
Mr. Speaker: I would be most pleased to
take the Minister's first point under consid-
eration. With respect to the second point I
am quite sure that the reason for absence of
those to whom undoubtedly he refers is prob-
ably substantial, and probably as good as that
reason used by any other members who find
it expedient to absent themselves from the
proceedings of this House from time to time.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: In pressing the point,
sir, I was wondering if the members of the
NDP group in this House had received your
permission to absent themselves from the
House today?
Mr. Speaker: It has not been the practice in
this assembly for members to request leave of
absence from the Speaker. That is usually
done through the party Whip's office and I
would anticipate that the same procedure
was followed by the group in question today.
The hon. member for Scarborough East.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
of Education.
Who are the members of the Minister of
Education's committee which has been meet-
ing since June, 1968, to examine existing con-
cepts, standards, methods and facilities for
training secondary school teachers? And when
will the committee's report be tabled in the
Legislature?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the
phraseology used by the hon. member really
is quite appropriate. I do not think the terms
of reference for the committee were really
44
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
quite that broad, as I understand it. This
committee really arose out of the decision to
discontinue the summer courses at the OCE
and is composed of a group of individuals
who are recommending to us ways and means
of keeping a flow of teachers into the secon-
dary schools at the same time as we discon-
tinue the summer school programme.
The chairman of the committee is Mr. T.
D. Boone, director of education, Etobicoke;
Mr. J. B. Callan, representative of the Ontario
secondary school headmasters' council and
principal of Nepean high school; D. F. Dad-
son, the dean of the OCE, Toronto; H. B.
Henderson, regional superintendent of The
Department of Education; St. Catharines;
N. J. Hill, representative of the Ontario
teachers' federation, St. Marys; Mrs. J. Aceti,
executive officer, Ontario secondary school
teachers' federation; J. F. Kinlin, superin-
tendent of curriculum, The Department of
Education; R. D. MacDonald, representative
of the Ontario school trustees' council, Till-
sonburg; A. H. McKague, superintendent of
supervision, T,he Department of Education;
Vernon Ready, dean of McArthur College of
Education, Queen's University, Kingston; J.
W. Singleton, representative of the associa-
tion of Ontario directors of education and the
director of education for the Burlington
board; W. S. Turner, dean of Althouse Col-
lege at Western; G. L. Woodruff, director of
teacher education, The Department of Edu-
cation; and David Steinhauer, secretary and
also assistant director of teacher education
in the department. I will get the member a
list if he would like.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I was wonder-
ing if the Minister might answer the second
part of my question. When will the com-
mittee's report be tabled in this Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this is not
what one would really call a formal, shall we
say, committee; it has been a group working
on this particular problem. I really had not
contemplated tabling it as such, but I would
certainly consider this, or making it available
to members of the education committee or
to the hon. member— just whatever procedure
would be appropriate. It is apparent that it
is now under discussion in the department to
see just what steps we can take and cer-
tainly I will give the members the informa-
tion contained in it.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
clarify one of the Minister's remarks. He
mentioned that the wording in the question
was a bit strong. I would let the Minister
know that the wording is taken from his
own report of September, 1968, on the func-
tions of that committee.
The second question for the Minister of
Education, Mr. Speaker, is this. What justi-
fication is there for the Minister of Educa-
tion's decision that average building coits per
pupil for elementary schools for new projects
should be allowed to increase by 14 per cent
between 1967 and the first half of 1968?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the actual
costs of construction betwen the two years
has increased in the neighbourhod of from
two to three per cent. This is the actual
increase in the average building cost. The
remaining 11 per cent, and this is a guessti-
mate, results from a number of elementary
boards that constructed, say, a five- or six-
room school four or five years ago, and
have added library facilities or resource facili-
ties, perhaps gymnatoriums, or what have
you, to their existing facilities. The actual
cost of construction for elementary schools
during that period of time is between two
and three per cent. The additional percentage
that will reflect itself, perhaps, in the infor-
mation the member obtained from the Min-
ister's report, reflects the addition of such
items as libraries, and so on, to what had
been existing units.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-
Bruce. The hon. member for Grev-Bruce was
on his feet a short time ago and he is next
if he wishes to ask a question.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question to
the Attorney General. I know I have the
unanimous support of the NDP on this
today.
What steps are being taken to require
owners of guns to possess an identification
card obtained from a proper authority?
Second, what steps are being taken to
forbid the sale of any firearms to any indi-
vidual not possessing such a card?
Third, will an Ontario gun code be drawn
up?
Fourth, will the government consider hav-
ing a firearms amnesty day during which the
owners of unregistered hand guns would be
able to surrender these weapons without
criminal charges being laid?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member on April 23 and on June 7 of this
year asked the same question of me.
Mr. Sargent: I will bet the Minister is com-
pletely wrong.
NOVEMBER 21, 1968
45
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Sen ices): I will bet on the Attorney General.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The question on June
7 was:
What steps does the gove-nment plan to institute
in regard t > a gun control law, such as prohibiting
purchase by mail and making guns harder to get.
and would the government consider a week of
amnesty to be able to turn in illegally held weapons?
I answered at that time, Mr. Speaker, as
I answer it again today, that the matter of
control of guns— "offensive weapons," as they
are described— is a matter for federal jurisdic-
tion and control. There are numerous sections
in The Criminal Code starting at section 82
and running some 10 sections or more, under
the headings of Offensive Weapons, Posses-
ion of the Weapons, Carrying of the
\\ 'capons, Carrying Concealed Weapons, the
Registration of Weapons, and Firearms.
This whole matter is in the code. I pointed
out in my answer in June of this year that a
bill had been presented in the federal House,
on which we had offered some advice and
comment to the Minister of Justice at Ottawa.
The bill, which I have here, was Bill C195.
It was given first reading in the federal House
on December 21, 1967. It had not been con-
eluded when the last session of the Parlia-
ment at Ottawa prorogued, but I understand
it is again before the House. It will be intro-
duced again and it has wide provisions with
respect to the control of firearms. As to the
matter of amnesty, that is not within our
jurisdiction either.
This question has really been asked now
three times, and answered the same way.
Mr. Sargent: The Ontario Junior Chamber
of Commerce wants to sponsor an amnesty
day. Would the Minister suggest to me that
I tell them that it is "no dice," that he does
not encourage it?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I would not suggest
that the member tell them "no dice." I
would suggest that he tell them that it is a
matter within federal jurisdiction of this
whole area.
Mr. Sargent: The same thing about wire-
tapping too?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, wiretapping too.
The criminal law applies to the whole coun-
try. These laws are in the field of criminal
law; all our criminal law is contained in The
Criminal Code which is a federal statute.
. Anything relating to criminal offences is
federal.
Mr. Sargent: Another question to the
Attorney General, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Attorney General consider put-
ting into force, in Ontario, a programme
whereby persons arrested for minor offences
be given summonses at station houses, in-
stead of being taken immediately into court?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the pro-
cedure with respect to arrests-
Mr. Sargent: Of minor offences.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, I will come to
that, just give me an opportunity.
The procedure with respect to the issue of
summonses, rather than arrests, is, again, all
laid down in The Criminal Code of Canada
and those are the procedural rules, which
are federal.
Now I know the hon. member is talking—
if he will give me his attention— the hon.
member-
Mr. Sargent: I was—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The hon. member refers
to-
Mr. Sargent: We do not believe all-
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: When you do not hear
it, you cannot very well believe it.
The hon. member speaks of minor offences
and I take it he is speaking of those quasi-
criminal or minor matters which are within
Ontario jurisdiction.
With respect to those, we did make pro-
vision by amending our Summary Convic-
tions Act by which we provide that— with
respect to those things which lie within
Ontario statutes, such as The Highway Traf-
fic Act, The Liquor Act, and so on— the
officer may, in a sense, arrest. He may arrest
and bring the person before the police sta-
tion or to such premises and there, the senior
officer may release such person on his own
recognizance. We have that with respect to
Ontario offences, and those, I think, are what
the hon. member means by minor offences.
We have no authority to do this with
respect to the federal offences in the code.
The procedures are laid down in the code.
I would say this, we again have made rep-
resentation to Ottawa, through the Minister
of Justice there, sometime back that this
would be a procedure which might very well
be adopted.
Mr. Sargent: Thanks, in a supplementary
way.
46
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Wishart: And may I just add
this. The Criminal Code, I think the hon.
member knows, is also now before the fed-
eral Parliament. I am not sure that it con-
tains this provision but the criminal code is
being reviewed. The new statute we expect
will appear shortly.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister
aware that in another jurisdiction in 147,000
cases of summonses issued they saved $1
million in court appearances? It would seem
to be a good thing to try in all minor offences
in this province.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I wish you would make
representation to Ottawa and support us in
this.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He is not talking to
Ottawa.
Mr. Sargent: A question to the Attorney
General.
Mr. Speaker, is the Attorney General aware
that Mr. Justice McRuer recommends that in
every single one of the provinces, 500 jus-
tices of the peace should be fired and a fresh
start should be made? Does the Attorney
General agree, and if so, what steps are
being taken?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I am quite
aware of the recommendations made by the
hon. Mr. McRuer in his report on inquiry
into civil rights. I did make some previous
comment about this.
Mr. McRuer suggested, as the hon. member
represents, that the justice of the peace pro-
cedures and training, their approach, and
so on, left a great deal to be desired. He
said that they perhaps should all be removed
from office and, I think he said, rehired.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. McRuer did not say that.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, reviewed, in any
event and sorted out. I am not sure just
what he did mean, quite frankly. Certainly
I do not think he directed his mind immedi-
ately to the practical consequences of such
action.
I will say that along with our review of his
other recommendations, this is one that we
must review immediately. Every justice of the
peace in the province has been asked to
furnish us with the material showing the ex-
tent of his work, the service he is rendering
and we are reviewing it from other ap-
proaches too. This is one of those recom-
mendations which we are reviewing. But to
simply dismiss them all and to leave the gap
which would then exist in our administration
of justice is not a practical approach at all.
We are reviewing it and will be coming to
certain conclusions before long.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on page 1114
of the report on civil rights, Mr. Justice Mc-
Ruer reveals that the city of Toronto is in
direct contravention of its general licensing
by-law in allowing a club licence for $300—
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sargent: Club licence for $300 to be
sold for $13,500-
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order!
The member may not place a question
unless it be supplementary to a question
which has been submitted to the Speaker's
office. The member cannot as far as I can
see, relate this to the question he just asked
the-
Mr. Sargent: This is another question.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a new question?
Mr. Sargent: Yes, better sharpen up. He
has it there some place.
Mr. Speaker: What number is on the
question that the member is asking?
Mr. Sargent: I do not have the master list
here, sir.
Mr. Speaker: The question that the mem-
ber has asked has not been given Mr.
Speaker. That question has never been sub-
mitted as far as I can recall.
An hon. member: Page 1114.
Mr. Sargent: All right. A question to the
Prime Minister. He has it, Mr. Speaker,
but-
Mr. Speaker: It has not been submitted to
the office.
Mr. Sargent: I will sit down but I want
to ask this question of the Minister of Eco-
nomics and Development.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps if it would be
directed to the Minister of Trade and De-
velopment (Mr. Randall) it might be more
directly answered.
Mr. Sargent: You change them so often
around here, how are we supposed to know?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I still
have one more question from the hon. mem-
ber which was submitted yesterday, but the
hon. member was not in his seat to read it
NOVEMBER 21, 1968
47
when the time came. I wonder if I could
not dispose of his question before he pro-
ceeds to question other Ministers.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I also have that
question.
Mr. Sargent: You probably know the an-
swer to that one.
Mr. Speaker: I also have that question.
I would be glad to give it to the member in
case he has not got it so that he may ask this
one— this is the one with respect to tenants'
rights.
Mr. Sargent: What steps are being taken
—that is to the Minister of Economics and
Development-
Mr. Speaker: No, your office was advised
that that was redirected to the Attorney
General's office.
Mr. Sargent: I am sorry. What steps are
being taken to make new laws giving the
tenants such rights as a board of tenants'
affairs, a law to enable tenants to defend
themselves in court against eviction, and un-
fair leases?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, almost a
year ago I think it is now, I asked the
Ontario law reform commission in its study
on the whole field of property law to devote
special attention to the field of landlords and
tenants. We again made that request after
checking with the commission just toward
the latter part of the session in June of this
year.
The work has been pushed forward. The
studies are complete. The report is being
prepared. I understand it is about ready for
the printer and I am awaiting receipt of it.
I expect it will contain recommendations on
all these matters relating to landlord and
tenant.
I might mention that a question of this
nature was asked yesterday by the hon.
member for York South (Mr. MacDonald).
I gave him this answer. The hon. member
was not here at that time.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question of
the Minister of Trade and Development:
Would the Minister advise if a loan was
granted from the Ontario development cor-
poration to Caswell Hotel in Sudbury; how
does Caswell fit into the tenns of reference
of the Ontario development corporation; and
how much was the loan?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Speaker, let me first say
I am very delighted that the hon. member
for Grey-Bruce has included me again this
year as a member of the team to participate
in "Eddie's happy hour".
The answer to the first question is no, not
to Caswell Hotel (Sudbury) Limited. A con-
ventional loan was approved to Caswell
Management of Canada Limited operating
Caswell's Hotel Bernard at Sundridge.
The second answer: Conventional loans are
available to soundly based and well managed
companies in a resort area for the purpose
of providing facilities which are required
and which do not now exist in sufficient quan-
tity in the area.
The additional facilities include an increase
in conference accommodation and an im-
provement in the ski facilities, both of which
will benefit other resorts in the area.
And, three: a conventional loan of $ 100,000.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question? Would the Minister
answer me these three points then? This
man is a top Conservative, he gave money to
the funds up north-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sargent: Are the terms of reference
that they have not been able to get financing
from any other source? Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Randall: That is right.
Mr. Sargent: So, the Minister is suggesting
that the millionaire firm of Caswell could not
get loans from IDB, or anyone else. Holiday
Inn could not get loans from IDB, or anyone
else, but the ODC-
Mr. Speaker: Order! Will the member
place his supplementary question?
Mr. Sargent: He has answered the question.
Hon. Mr. Randall: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker. I have not answered the ques-
tion, I did not get a chance.
Mr. Sargent: Let us get an answer some-
where.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Let me first say, Mr.
Speaker, that when this application comes in
it is treated as any other. It goes before
the members of the Ontario development cor-
poration. It goes before an outside board of
directors, who do not care what a man's
politics are. It goes before the Treasury
board and is approved by council. I might
say that there have been no partisan politics
in this province since the Hepburn regime.
48
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: Would the Minister answer
another supplementary question?
How much of this loan is completely for-
giveable? Of the $100,000, how much will
he pay back?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not know: I would
have to get this information—
Mr, Sargent: The Minister knows it is
nothing, does he not?
Hon. Mr. Randall: —and I will be glad to
answer it tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Grey-Bruce wish to place any more questions
of his that I hold?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I have
another question here from the hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has adopted
the procedure of filing with the Speaker's
office a great number of questions and then
asking only a few of them on certain days.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I may not be hearing
them all then.
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister
of Trade and Development.
When does the Minister plan to announce
the sale of houses to the tenants in the
Green Meadows subdivision which is man-
aged by OHG in the city of Guelph?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, the answer
to that question is: Ontario housing corpora-
tion will today be writing to each individual
tenant in the Green Meadows subdivision in
the city of Guelph advising them of the terms
and conditions under which they may elect
to purchase the dwelling which they now
occupy.
There are three basic conditions which
tenants must meet in order to qualify. These
are as follows:
(a) Their financial circumstances must be
such that they meet the gross debt service
requirements of The National Housing Act.
(b) They must have been tenants in good
standing for a period of not less than twelve
months.
(c) Their family size must be such as to
constitute full occupancy of the dwelling.
Mr. Worton: If I may ask a supplementary
question, would the Minister give us a copy
of the conditions under which the houses are
sold?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, I might add to
that-
Mr. Worton: Because I think it is a good
deal and I would like as much information
as possible.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I might say this, that the
tenants will be offered five different purchase
options as follows— and I will see that you get
a copy of this.
First, they can pay cash if it is possible.
Second, a five per cent down payment on
house and land, with balance amortized over
a period up to 35 years. Down payment on
dwelling only, with repayment of balance on
dwelling and total cost of land over a period
of up to 35 years. Down payment on dwell-
ing only, with balance on dwelling repayable
over a period up to 35 years. Land on a
leasehold basis, with option to purchase at
the end of five years.
The purchase price has been established at
$16,000 for land and dwelling, with a $2,000
forgiveness clause effective five years from
the date of purchase, provided the dwelling
is not resold during that period.
I might add that the additional $2,000 is to
prevent speculation on resale of the property
for at least the first five years. If the prop-
erty is sold after this term the $2,000 is for-
given and during the five-year period no inter-
est or payments on the principal are required
on that $2,000.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of
Transport (Mr. Haskett).
Will the Minister consider subsidizing the
research of Dr. Pearl Winesberger at the
University of Ottawa into the effect of sound
on living cells due to the increasing concern
regarding the biological effects of noise, par-
ticularly in relationship of human behaviour
and safety?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, the department is not consider-
ing subsidizing this project. We are not in-
volved in research of this kind.
Mr. B. Newman: If I may ask of the Min-
ister a supplementary question: Does he not
consider that there is a relationship between
the effect of noise and behaviour concerning
specific relation.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I am not aware of this
specific relation.
NOVEMBER 21, 1968
49
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if the Minis-
ter is not aware, it would be a good thing to
have some research done on it.
Mr. Speaker: Order! If the hon. member
wishes to ask a supplementary question, he
may do so, but he may not comment or make
a comment on—
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have
another question of the Minister of Transport:
Will the Minister amend The Highway Traffic
Act to permit a wider use of the discretionary
powers as a result of the question of the
legality of the wise decision of Magistrate
Joseph P. McMahon in giving an intermittent
licence suspension to a man who pleaded
guilty to an impaired driving charge?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, this case
involves an offence under The Criminal Code
of Canada, Section 223, and not The High-
way Traffic Act of Ontario. I am informed
that the decision by Magistrate McMahon has
be en appealed to a higher court.
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): I have a ques-
tion for the Minister of Education.
What are the annual publishing and distri-
bution costs of the magazine Dimensions?
What is the intended purpose of this publi-
cation? Does the Minister believe that this
purpose has been fulfilled?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, dealing with
the latter part of the question first: The pur-
pose of Dimensions— I have copies here, I am
sure the hon. member reads it regularly— is an
effort on the part of the department to involve
many members of the profession, the teachers,
the trustees, the home and school groups, the
government officials, business executives and
so on with, shall we say, some of the new
thoughts on education.
They do not relate to departmental policy
or departmental announcements. They relate
basically to new ideas and some philosophy
as far as education is concerned. This was
requested from some of the organizations two
years ago. While it is difficult to say that it
is in fact fulfilling this purpose at this early
stage, I can only say that the requests for this
material exceed the supply at the present
moment. I think this is one indication that it
is being relatively well received in the com-
munity that it serves.
The cost, Mr. Speaker, just to use round
figures, is in the neighbourhood of $69,000
per year. This means 12 issues, so that the
average cost per issue would be approxi-
mately $5,750.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downs-
view.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
of Trade and Development.
Has the Ontario Housing Corporation re-
vised his standard form of lease?
Hon. Mr. Randall: A revised form of lease
for use in all Ontario Housing Corporation
developments has been prepared in consul-
tation with The Department of the Attorney
General. This document has been prepared
within the framework of our existing legisla-
tion. It is now at the final draft stage and
will shortly be put into effect. At that time I
will be pleased to make a copy available to
the hon. member.
I might say also that the Law Reform
Commission is currently reviewing The Land-
lord and Tenant Act, as he probably knows.
Any pertinent revisions to the Act which may
arise as a result of this study will be incor-
porated into future Ontario Housing Cor-
poration leases.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of a sup-
plementary, would the Minister advise when
he anticipates the new form of lease will
likely be?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I was first
told it was going to print today, so I think it
is almost imminent. I would think we would
use it within the next 30 days or so.
Mr. Singer: I will look forward to receiv-
ing a copy.
I have a question for the Attorney General.
In view of the decision of the Ontario Law
Enforcement Compensation Board in the case
of Larry Botrie and in view of the Attorney
General's statement to the first session of the
28th Legislature in relation to the meaning
of The Law Enforcement Compensation Act,
does the government intend to bring in ap-
propriate amendments to make meaningful
the government's apparent intent when it
first introduced this legislation?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, this again
is a question of enquiring as to government
policy, which I have the right to refuse to
answer. I am prepared to answer the ques-
tion but I draw the attention of the House to
the matter, as I wish to preserve my right.
Second, I would like to say that this same
question, in almost the same language, was
asked as a supplementary yesterday by the
hon. member for High Park. I answered at
50
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the time, and I am going to read part of that
reply. I said:
I welcome the supplementary question, and I
think perhaps I might be permitted to say that
when this legislation establishing the compensation
board was introduced last year, I did indicate
that, in our consideration of it, we considered it
perhaps as a preliminary step in the whole matter
of compensation to victims of crime or those assist-
ing in law enforcement. I am, of course, aware of
the comments of the hon. Mr. McRuer in his report
on civil rights. I am at liberty to say that the
whole matter of compensation to victims of crime
is still being reviewed as a matter of policy of
government.
We did indicate last year that the bill we
introduced was to compensate those injured
or killed or damaged in assisting a police
officer in law enforcement, and that they
would be compensated. We indicated that,
in our thinking, that was perhaps the first
step and that the matter was being studied
further. As to what the policy is, I am not
in a position, at this moment, to announce.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitch-
ener.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the hon. Prime
Minister.
Has any policy been decided on with re-
spect to the problems of public beaches on
the Lake Erie shoreline?
Has the government given any study to the
report made by Professor John N. Jackson,
head of the geography department of Brock
University on the request to the Niagara
regional development council which con-
cluded that the beaches are public now?
Will the government convene a conference
to hear the public views on this problem so
that legislation can be enacted which will
balance the rights of the cottagers with the
recreational needs of the general public?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I think
this question has been dealt with before in
the House.
It is a very complex legal matter involving
the rights of the owners of these properties,
and how far they extend. It has been neces-
sary to search the titles to a great many
properties in order to determine just what
the legal rights of the owners are. The
studies involved in getting answers to these
questions, we hope to have concluded rela-
tively soon. At that time we will decide, and
will bring to the House, a policy. I would
hope that would be during this current
session.
As far as Professor Jackson's report is con-
cerned, it has been studied. It is part of the
study material presently being examined. I
do not think it is necessary for us to hold a
conference to get public views in this matter.
They have been expressed in all sorts of
ways. They are before us now, so it is not
the intent of the government to convene a
conference because we do not think it is
necessary.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Perth.
Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Correc-
tional Services (Mr. Grossman). There are
two parts:
1. Why did the department not consult
the Perth county council before it advertised
for the position of general clerk at the Perth
county jail, due to the work already done in
this field by the county clerk and his staff?
2. Is the Minister aware that the Perth
county clerk's office would be saving the pro-
vincial government $4,678 each year if it con-
tinued to administer the clerical work of this
jail?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, when
the department took over the operation of
the county jails, it did so in the knowledge
that many improvements were necessary in
all areas of the operations. Over the years
there have been problems which have empha-
sized that efficiencies in all aspects and sec-
tions of the jails were most necessary, and
that no phase could be treated as a part-time
job; particularly, Mr. Speaker, when one
considers the security needs of a jail.
There have been instances where jail staff
have been severely criticized because of delay
in processing, inaccuracies in recording, and
so on. In fact these criticisms have some-
times been quite valid. The jail is dealing
with people. It is our responsibility to ensure
that these people do not suffer because of
inefficiencies in the operation of the institu-
tions.
In this particular jail, and indeed many
more jails, correctional officers were not able
to devote their entire working day to their
correctional duties but shared clerical duties—
that is, keeping inmate, admitting, and dis-
charging records, calculating fines, and so on.
The governor, particularly, was frequently
responsible for minor clerical duties. When
the department analyzed the total work
needed to be done— not just the work that
was previously carried out by the clerk-
treasurer and his staff, but all the clerical
work, including that previously done by the
governor and correctional officers— we de-
NOVEMBER 21, 1968
51
cided that this was sufficient to warrant the
employment of a full-time clerk.
In the light of this background it is obvi-
ous why we would not consult the Perth
county council before advertising the post. It
was our own responsibility and we accepted
it.
In answer to the second question, Mr.
Speaker, we received a letter from the county
council offering to have this work done for
us for $50 a month, and we wrote back ex-
plaining the full duties of the position and
detailing 'the specifications. We said, and I
quote from the letter:
I feel certain that the council, when
reading these specifications, will realize
that we cannot presume on the generosity
of the office of the clerk-treasurer to fulfil
all of the requirements of this position.
Since receiving these specifications, the Perth
county council have not renewed their offer,
and, in my opinion, very wisely. If they do
wish to do so— if they wish to commit their
staff to carry out all the duties that are re-
quired by this position to our complete satis-
faction, and in keeping with the degrees of
efficiency required— I am sure that we would
be happy to accept their offer. As a matter
of fact it is a most generous offer, having
regard for our requirements.
However, the hon. members Mr. Speaker
will recognize the importance of correctional
staff working entirely at their own responsi-
bilities. They will remember many occasions
in the past when we have had problems in
the local jails— escapes, and so on— when cor-
rectional staff who were responsible for the
security of the public had been distracted
from their tasks and were performing as
part-time cooks, part-time record clerks, part-
time accountants, part-time telephone oper-
ators, part-time typists, and so on. It is our
view we can no longer permit correctional
work to be done by people who are doing
it as a part-time function, and particularly
those who should be fully engaged, all day,
in what we consider vital work.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for King-
ston and the Islands.
Mr. S. Apps (Kingston and the Islands):
Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would
like to announce to the House that one of
my constituents, Mr. Donald MacDonald, of
Wolfe Island— who by the way is no relation,
I understand, to the leader of the NDP— was
awarded the world's championship prize for
forage seed at the Royal winter fair this year.
His entrv was for birdsfoot trefoil seed and
was the best of all forage seeds at the fair.
Mr. MacDonald has grown this type of seed
for a number of years and this achievement
has brought honour to himself and to all
fanners in our section of eastern Ontraio.
It is also a pleasure for me to announce
that Mr. Harvey Knox, of Glenburnie, won
the world's championship for barley seed at
the Royal winter fair. Glenburnie is just four
miles north of Kingston, in Frontenac county.
I think these two awards are indicative of
the high calibre of farms and farmers in our
area of Frontenac county and I feel sure that
you will join me in congratulating these two
gentlemen on their success this year.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Clerk of the House: The 1st order, con-
sideration of the Speech of the Honourable,
the Lieutenant-Governor at the opening of
the session.
Mr. J. A. Belanger (Prescott and Russell):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded
by the member for Fort William (Mr. Jessi-
man), that a humble address be presented
to the Honourable W. Ross Macdonald,
Lieutenant-Governor of the province of On-
tario. May it please your honour:
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal
subjects of the legislative assembly of the
province of Ontario now assembled, beg
leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious
speech which Your Honour has addressed to
us.
Mr. Speaker, it is a personal pleasure and
a great honour to have received the privilege
of addressing this House on this occasion. It
is also a privilege for me to be in this House
at a time when our new Lieutenant-Governor
has delivered his first Speech from the Throne.
I am sure I speak for all members of this
House when I say he is a welcome guest in
our Chamber. Also at this time I would com-
pliment Mr. Speaker on his excellent work
during the last session.
As well, my congratulations to this gov-
ernment's newest Cabinet Minister, the Min-
ister of Revenue (Mr. White). I am sure his
youthful and energetic abilities assure an
excellent performance in the demanding post
of Minister of Revenue.
Mr. Speaker, this present occasion is the
third highlight of my political career this
year. On March 14 I delivered my maiden
speech in this Chamber. Earlier this month,
I took part, tor the first time as a member, in
52
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the annual meeting of the Ontario Progressive
Conservative Party.
I count our annual meeting this year an
historical event. Some 2,000 Progressive Con-
servatives gathered from every corner of our
vast province to elect new association officers
and to honour three of the outstanding leaders
of our party.
Observing that event, with its throngs of
dedicated and enthusiastic supporters, listen-
ing to the words of our past leaders, Mr.
Drew and Mr. Frost, and particularly to the
words of our present leader, the Prime Min-
ister (Mr. Robarts), I was easily able to
understand why our party has elected the
government of Ontario for 50 of the 68 years
of this century.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Belanger: A quality product is always
successful. A quality product will continue to
be successful because it adapts itself with
energy and imagination to the needs of its
customers. When our customers, the Ontario
electorate, come to the election counter they
are shrewd buyers. They will not buy pigs in
pokes. They are not shopping for impractical
dreams or flashy packages. They look for and
buy a quality political product and expect
to be served, not mastered, by their gov-
ernment.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken of a product
because I am a small businessman from a
rural riding— the riding of Prescott and Rus-
sell in eastern Ontario. I am a Franco-On-
tarian. Most of the people in my riding are
Franco-Ontarians and French-speaking. I am
proud to represent them. I am equally proud
to represent the Anglo-Saxons of my riding.
As well, I consider it a particular point of
pride to represent all of those newer Cana-
dians from overseas who have chosen to add
their energies and culture to the riding of
Prescott and Russell. But, old or new citizens,
they are shrewd customers in the political
store and have chosen— and will continue to
choose— the Progressive Conservative brand—
the quality product.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that our party has
formed the government of this province for
more than 50 years of this century is a
result of Progressive Conservative policies
that have obviously met with the approval
of the electors.
Why have our policies met with approval?
Because they have been progressive policies
—policies of reform— policies that have placed
Ontario in the front rank of the world's
most advanced jurisdictions. Harnessing the
imagination, enthusiasm and individual ini-
tiative of its people, the Progressive Con-
servative governments of Ontario have created
a community where there is more oppor-
tunity and greater prosperity than in any
other province of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out
another simple but fundamental fact of our
party's policies that keeps us in harmony
with Ontario citizens. That is our respect
and guardianship of individual freedom. This
has been a cornerstone of our political philo-
sophy. To quote a few examples: in 1950,
the hon. Leslie Frost said:
We maintain that the government should
be the servant, not the master, of the
people. We hope to assist the initiative
of our people with a minimum of regula-
tion and interference on the part of the
government.
At a later date, our present Premier, who
is also a Canadian statesman, reinforced the
keystone of our policies when he said:
It is our belief that the role of govern-
ment is to create economic and social op-
portunities for its people so that they can
maintain their independence from the
state.
Mr. Speaker, these statements of political
philosophy from Progressive Conservative
leaders, past and present, are keenly appre-
ciated by the people of my riding of Prescott
and Russell. The riding I represent is mainly
a rural riding, though a portion of it— one
township in fact— forms part of the new
Ottawa-Carleton metropolitan area. Because
the majority of the citizens I proudly repre-
sent are farmers, I have a deep interest in
the individual initiative and freedom that
is so strongiy encouraged by our government.
We all know that our farming population has
always nourished and will continue to sustain
the same spirit of individual enterprise.
A century and a half ago, Ontario's first
settlers were farmers. In the middle of the
last century a farmer produced enough to
feed himself and his family with a little left
over to barter for those few items that he
and his wife could not create by hand. Today,
each Ontario farmer produces enough food
and fibre for himself and 40 other people.
If technology continues to advance at the
same pace, each farmer will be supplying
the needs of 150, perhaps 200, people by the
year 2000.
Mr. Speaker, although agriculture is On-
tario's oldest industry, it is not by any means
an old-fashioned industry. Today, there is a
new look in rural Ontario. Farms are larger,
NOVEMBER 21, 1968
53
new crops are being grown, mechanization is
filling the gap created by the migration of
rural youth to urban areas. New farm struc-
tures are changing the very skyline of the
rural community.
Paved roads are moving back the com-
munity boundaries. The one-room school has
given way to central schools which offer
educational opportunities equal to those in
urban Ontario. Much of this progress and
improvement is the result of the creative
policies of our Progressive Conservative
governments.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, our agricultural
community is not without its problems. In
1966, the census of Ontario revealed that
only 26 per cent of our farm operators
grossed over $10,000 a year and only 7.5 per
cent grossed over $25,000 annually. If only
a quarter of Ontario farmers are able to gen-
erate gross returns of $10,000, what is the
future of the other three quarters? This is a
problem that must be solved.
I am confident that solutions will be found
by this government and that those solutions
will also protect the freedom of enterprise so
dear to our farmers. I look forward with
very special interest, on behalf of the farmers
(if Prescott and Russell, to the report of the
special committee on farm income which is
expected in the next few weeks.
I am proud to use the slogan, "province of
opportunity" when I speak of Ontario be-
cause it is a slogan that is literally true. It
has been true in the past, it is true today,
and I am confident it will remain true in the
days ahead. I am confident that my govern-
ment is accepting the challenge to ensure
that opportunity exists for those people who
live in rural Ontario, whether or not they
are farmers.
Much has been said about the "good life"
in the country— the freedom, the indepen-
dence, the enjoyment of fresh air and clean
water. But space, fresh air and clean water
are net enough to keep body and soul to-
gether. They are not enough to finance the
family's education or provide the necessities
and the extras that make life worthwhile.
Unless rural living generates an income that
will provide the "good life," the social bene-
fits will be few and the pleasures of rural
living meaningless.
Mr. Speaker, I will specify a few of the
problems facing the farm community, not
only in Prescott and Russell, but throughout
the farming areas of our province.
New disposal methods which will prevent
air, soil and water pollution must be de-
veloped. It may be that zoning or planning
restrictions will have to be considered. Vast
amounts of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and
herbicides are being used in rural Ontario.
We must develop fool-proof safeguards and
control mechanisms that will prevent misuse,
protect the user and the public, while at the
same time permitting the farmer to benefit
from these materials.
In any industry that involves considerable
capital, management must have access to
adequate credit on a continuing basis. This
is especially true of agriculture, where his-
torically the business must be refinanced
every 25 years and the returns are seasonal.
Our policies, I am sure, will ensure sufficient
capital is available in both short- and long-
term forms.
Specialized training must be provided to
those who will manage the farms of the
future. Present facilities are operating to
capacity in turning out 400 diploma gradu-
ates each year. We cannot in future afford
poorly trained farm managers.
Mr. Speaker, I have detailed some of the
problems facing us in this critical area of
agriculture. At this time also I want to make
quite clear the fine record of service the agri-
cultural industry has received from the Pro-
gressive Conservative governments of this
province.
Our government has provided agricultural
representatives, engineers, home economists,
dairy fieldmen, rural development counsellors,
and farm management specialists. Research
facilities of every kind are available to the
farmer-businessman. Colleges of agricultural
technology are strategically located throughout
the province. Marketing legislation provides
our farm people with the machinery to con-
duct their own marketing in an orderly
fashion. Twenty marketing boards handling
40 commodities now operate under authority
of The Ontario Farm Prodults Marketing Act
and The Milk Act of Ontario. Market devel-
opment officers at home and abroad are con-
stantly in search of new markets and assist
our producers and processors to develop these
outlets. Young farmers wishing to embark in
full-time farming, either alone or in partner-
ship, can arrange first mortgage loans through
the junior farmer establishment loans board.
Capital grants are available to assist in the
expansion of farm business operations.
A specific example would be the capital
grants made by The Ontario Department of
Agriculture and Food for farm structures and
farm drainage. In the period April 1, 1967,
54
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to November 15, 1968, the counties of Pres-
cott and Russell generated 683 applications
and grants totalling more than $315,000 were
paid. Under the ARDA programme for farm
water supplies and field enlargement, Prescott
and Russell received an additional 265 grants
totalling nearly $47,000.
Mr. Speaker, we can all be proud of On-
tario's tremendous progress in agriculture. The
productivity of our better farms is unequalled
in any other country. But, Mr. Speaker, we
face a constant challenge in this field. We
must chart a continuing course of progress
for rural Ontario— a course that will provide
a rich, a pleasant, and a rewarding life for
those who choose the rural life. That is the
challenge, Mr. Speaker, and I am certain we
intend to meet that challenge by providing
the economic climate necessary to a healthy
agricultural industry.
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, agricul-
ture is the primary industry of my riding of
Prescott and Russell. But that industry and
our urban centres cannot transport and com-
municate without an up-to-date highway sys-
tem. You can therefore imagine with what
great delight the people of my riding greeted
the Minister of Highways (Mr. Gomme's) an-
nouncement of this past week. On November
15, 1968, the Minister announced that tenders
will be called this month for the first con-
tract on the $70 million Highway 417, a
magnificent new four-lane freeway between
Ottawa and the Quebec border.
To add to our delight the Minister dis-
closed that the estimated construction time
of this 63-mile freeway has been cut to half
the original estimate. To quote the Minister:
"We are now working on a target date of six
years for completion." The first contract will
call for clearing a 4.8-mile section of the
right-of-way between the Base Line Road at
Ramsayville and the Eight Line Road in
Gloucester township. The tender closing date
has been set for December 18 and the con-
tract will be awarded shortly so that work
can be completed in May.
At this point I would like to congratulate
the Minister and the government also on the
completion of Highway 401, the Macdonald-
Cartier freeway.
The Minister has also stated that a further
contract for grading of Highway 417 will be
called in the spring and additional contracts
will be scheduled to maintain a continuous
sequence of construction.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact of modern life
that new and improved highways bring eco-
nomic development and fresh potential to the
region concerned. Because my riding of
Prescott and Russell is not among the most
prosperous ridings in Ontario, you may be
sure Highway 417 is regarded as proof posi-
tive of this government's intention to do
everything possible to improve the economic
circumstances of every part of this province.
Further proof of this government's con-
cern for the less favoured areas of the prov-
ince is evident in the admirable efforts of
the Ontario development corporation. Estab-
lished for the specific purpose of stimulating
economic development, the ODC has four
specific objectives:
1. To provide equalization of opportunity
for all Ontario municipalities in order to
attract new industry.
2. To provide for an expansion of industry
and employment, particularly in areas of
slow growth.
3. To provide opportunities for gainful
employment for our young people in the
smaller centres of population.
4. To provide a wider base of industrial
assessment for our smaller municipalities.
A recent example of this valuable assistance
in Prescott and Russell was a loan to North
Craft Industries Ltd., of Hawkesbury. This
loan of $62,000 will help greatly in the im-
mediate provision of 30 new jobs, plus ten
more new jobs within two years.
In addition to loans of various kinds, the
ODC programme provides extremely helpful
further assistance through its staff of con-
sultants. This assistance includes financial,
business and technical advice, and special
help on engineering, production and other
technical probems. On-the-spot advisory serv-
ices by teams of consultants sent to various
centres in the province, and management
training workshops tailored to assist the small
businessman.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, my riding is less
favoured with prosperity than many others.
But, the people of Prescott and Russell
are not seeking handouts. They are looking
for the opportunities and circumstances that
make it possible for them to help themselves.
Because their basic circumstances are not as
favourable as some others, they must look to
this government for continuing programmes
that tend to equalize their chances with the
more favoured parts of the province. As our
leader, the Prime Minister, has said, "We
must always recognize the need for the state
to do those things for individuals which can-
not be done by the individual."
NOVEMBER 21, 1968
55
Mr. Speaker, up to this point, I have spoken
of my pride in the part of which I am a mem-
ber: of agriculture, of highway development
and economic development, and of my heart-
felt pride in the riding of Prescott-Russell. I
now wish to speak as a Franco-Ontarian.
Au debut des annees 1600, au temps ou
des postes de traite et des postes de mission-
naire existaient le long des cours d'eau
ontariens, et que quelques 45,000 Indiens
etaient les seuls occupants de ce qui devait
devenir 1'Ontario, mes ancetres, les Francais,
fiuent les premiers a s'y etablir. lis y avaient
efFcctivement b&ti des communautes qui
s'etendaient aussi loin vers l'ouest quel le
district Windsor-Detroit, et ccla pres de cin-
quante ans avant que le Canada soit sous la
domination britannique.
Un plus graml noinbre de colons vinrent
s'y installer en 1784 au temps ou plusieurs
loyalistes de rEmpire uni, pourchasses vers le
nord, etaient a la recherche d'un refuge apres
la re volte amcricaine contre la Grande Bre-
tagne. A eux, se joignirent pour le defriche-
ment de nouvelles terres, des groupes
d'ecossais, d'irlandais, de hollandais, de suis-
ses et d'allemands.
Vers 1812, quand nous etions menaces par
la guerre anglo-americaine, la population avait
deja atteint le chiffre de 80,000. A la Con-
federation canadienne en 1867, elle etait de
1.5 million. Aujourd'hui, nous autres Franco-
ontariens comptons un total de presque
725,000 ames . . . ou approximativement 10
per cent de la population totale ontarienne.
Apres le groupe anglo-saxon qui forme la
majorite de la population, les Franco-ontariens
constituent le groupe le plus nombreux parmi
les nine autres origines ethniques principales
de la province. En tant que citoyen d'origin"
franchise, je me considere privilegie de faire
partie de cette mosai'que ontarienne si riche
et si variee.
Monsieur l'Orateur, e'est avec fierte que je
vous presente les donnees des groupes eth-
niques principaux qui enrichissent dans une
grande mesure, la vie culturelle de notre
province: Anglo-Saxon 60 per cent, 4,142,000;
Francais 10 per cent, 724,000; Allemand-
autrichien 7 per cent, 487,000; Italien 4 per
cent, 306,000; Hollandais 3 per cent, 216,000;
Polonais 2 per cent, 167,000; Ukrainien 2 per
cent, 139,000; Israelite 1 per cent, 77,000;
Scandinave 1 per cent, 70,000; Indien Cana-
dien 0.8 per cent, 56,000.
Nous devons nous considerer heureux en
Ontario, de partager ce riche heritage.
En tant que Franco-ontarien, j'ai sincere-
ment apprecie la declaration gouvernementale
faite en aout 1967, selon laquelle ce gouver-
nement a annonce sa ferme intention d'etablir
un systeme d'ecoles secondaires de langue
francaise finance par des fonds publics. J'ai
constate avec interet les pas de geant accorn-
plis dans ce domaine depuis cette declaration
et les mesures qui ont ete adoptees pour
mettre en oeuvre cette importante decision.
Un Comite designe pour etudier la question
des Ecoles Secondaires Publiques de langue
francaise a examine les methodes visant a
etendre l'instruction en francais au stage
secondaire. Une recommandation qui resulto
de cette etude propose que les cours deja
offerts en langue francaise dans ces ecoles
soient developpes de facon a pouvoir inclure
un programme d'etudes complet la ou le
nombre des eleves d'une region donnee justifie
une telle pratique.
Les lois permettant de realiser ces mesures
d'importance historique apporteront certaine-
ment une enorme amelioration dans les possi-
bilites educatives des Franco-ontariens. Les
Bills qui s'y rapportent prevoient les disposi-
tions legales pour l'etabissement d'ecoles ele-
mentaires et secondaires. Bien que le principe
d'une instruction bilingue avait ete reconnu
precedemment, jusqu'au jour ou ces bills
furent presentes par le Ministere de l'Educa-
tion (M. Davis), il n'evistait point de statu t
specifique garantissant des ecoles franchises
en Ontario.
Quels sont les buts d'une instruction secon-
dare de langue francaise? Quels sont les
besoins formules par a communaute Franco-
ontarienne dans ce domaine? Je repondrai a
ces questions d'une facon aussi breve que
possible.
1. Le dipldme bilingue d'une ecole secon-
daire de langue franchise devrait avoir acquis
une connaissance de francais qui soit aussi
complete que le permet le niveau d'aptitudes
intellectuelles d'un etudiant moyen. Le Fran-
cais est sa langue maternelle et devrait lui
etre enseigne compte tenu des besoins cultu-
rels aussi bien que pratiques. Sa connaissance
et son aptitude de manipuler la langue fran-
caise doit lui permettre de vivre une vie
pleine en tant que Canadien d'origine fran-
caise et doit aussi lui permettre de beneficier
et de participer activement a la vie culturelle
des Canadiens francophones et de la, commu-
naute francophone universelle.
56
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
2. Le diplome bilingue devrait avoir une
bonne connaissance de l'anglais pour qu'il
puisse:
(a) Communiquer d'une facon adequate
avec ses compatriotes anglophones;
(b) faire face aux conditions competitives
vis-a-vis de la main-d'oeuvre anglophone pos-
sedant les memes aptitudes professionnelles;
(c) prendre part aux activites politiques,
civiques et sociales au sein de sa communaute.
3. Apres avoir acquis les connaissances lin-
guistiques fondamentales, le dipome bilingue
devrait posseder une bonne comprehension
des normes devaluation et des aspects cultu-
rels de ses concitoyens anglophones.
Bref, Monsieur l'Orateur, notre ultime objec-
tif, qui est actuellement a la portee de notre
main, est d'assurer a tout etudiant franco-
phone de l'Ontario la possibilite de recevoir
une education dans sa langue maternelle a
partir du jardin d'enfants jusqu'a l'universite
ct plus.
Parlant d'education francaise, je suis par-
ticulierement heureux de constater deja des
signes de cooperation sinceres entre anglais
et francais dans le domaine de l'instruction
secondaire. Je desire citer l'exemple de la
Commission de "l'Ottawa Collegiate Institute"
qui a accepte d'assumer la responsabilite, a
partir de cet automne, pour les sept ecoles
secondaires privees de langue francaise
d'Ottawa. II faut dire que ce fut la une de-
cision admirable prise entierement et unique-
ment sur l'initiative des autorites locales
d'Ottawa. II faut ajouter que dans d'autres
regions de l'Ontario, des groupes francophones
et anglophones ont aussi mis sur pied des
comites conjoints dans le but de trouver le
meilleur moyen possible d'administrer des
ecoles secondaires de langue francaise.
Au cours des dix-huit derniers mois, ce
gouvernement a fait face a plusieurs evene-
ments et a su prendre d'importantes decisions
qui ont pour la communaute Franco-onta-
rienne, une grande signification. Ces evene-
ments et ces decisions ont contribue a faire
disparaitre les anciennes animosites qui ont
affecte plus d'une fois les relations recipro-
ques dans le passe. Cet acte magnifique du
grand Homme d'Etat qu'est le Premier (M.
Robarts), acte qui avait institue la Confe-
rence sur la Confederation de Demain en
novembre 1967, mit en marche le processus
d'un progres d'envergure nationale.
L'Ontario, de par les actes et les inten-
tions declares de son gouvernement, ainsi
que par les grandes qualites d'Homme d'Etat
de son Premier est devenu le symbole et le
champion des interets des Canadiens franco-
phones residant dans toutes les provinces, en
dehors du Quebec.
Comment se fait-il done que tant de choses
se soient accomplies dans cette province? La
raison en est simple, mais pourtant extreme-
ment importante, e'est parce que bon nombre
d'ontariens anglophones veulent et aspirent a
ce que notre province reflete plus fidelement
les ideaux que nous a traces notre heritage
historique.
lis reconnaissent qu'il existe au Canada
deux cultures linguistiques fondamentales. lis
comprennent que la diversite est la source
mi'me de notre force et de la richesse de
notre vie.
Le mois passe a Cornwall, le Premier avait
reitere cette attitude en disant que "Le Gou-
vernement de cette province s'est engage a
assurer a tous nos citoyens une citoyennete
pleine et egale quelle que soit leur origine
linguistique ou nationale. Ce faisant, nous
avons reconnu les aspirations legitimes de
nos residents francophones et leur droit de
pouvoir s'exprimer dans leur propre langue.
Nous avons prouve de plusieurs facons et
dans de nombreuses occasions, a tous les
Canadiens, que le gouvernement de l'Ontario
est pret a adopter comme il l'a d'ailleurs fait,
des mesures constructives a cette fin."
Quelles sont certaines de ces mesures? Je
citerai comme premier exemple la Fonction
Publique de l'Ontario.
L'etablissement par le Ministere de la
Fonction Publique et le Ministere de l'Edu-
cation de cours de langue francaise a l'inten-
tion des fonctionnaires dont les fonctions exi-
gent une connaissance du francais.
Toutes les lettres recues en francais par le
gouvernement seront repondues dans cette
langue.
Tous les ministeres gouvernementaux seront
encourages a fournir des services bilingues
dans les bureaux regionaux situes dans des
zones ou il existe une concentration suffisante
de citoyens francophones.
Le gouvernement etendra les services de
son bureau de traduction dans le but speci-
fique de resoudre le probleme de communi-
cation en francais.
Il existe encore un domaine assez serieux
ou le gouvernement ontarien a aussi adopte
des politiques saines concernant l'usage du
francais et de l'anglais dans l'administration
municipale. II preconise l'emploi des deux
langues dans les communautes qui comptent
un nombre suffisant de citoyens franco-
phones; elles se situent principalement dans
NOVEMBER 21, 1968
57
Test et le nord-est de l'Ontario, dans les
comtes et les districts de Stormont, Glen-
garry, Prescott et Russell, Carleton, Nipis-
sing, Tem'skaming, Cochrane, Sudbury et
Algoma. Cette categorie comprend aussi des
communautes etablies au sud-ouest de l'On-
tario telles que Penetanguishene sur la Baie
Georgienne, Welland et dans certaines parties
du comte d'Essex.
Les municipalites seront appelees a adop-
ter un certain nombre de mesures speciales
comme l'emploi d'un personnel bilingue suffi-
s:mt pour servir le public d'une facon efficace
dans les deux langues, oralement et par ecrit.
La place me manque pour vous donner les
details des nombreux aspects de cette poli-
tique, mais je citerai pourtant un exemple
tynique qui est la preparation de formules
officielles locales dans les deux langues
comme par exemple, les avis de cote fon-
ciere, les formules d'imp6t, les factures d'eau
et les listes des electeurs.
Ces projets representent dans une certaine
mesure pour les autorites municipales, la
reconnaissance de la situation existante dans
un certain nombre de municipalites. Un bon
nombre de gouvernements locaux de Test de
l'Ontario ont conduit une grande partie de
leurs affaires en francais, pendant plusieurs
annees. Les municipalites d'Eastview et de
Hawkesbury ont servi leur public dans une
tres grande mesure dans les deux langues.
Dans le cadre des efforts qui se poursuivent
actuellement et qui visent a assurer des possi-
bility £ducatives pleines et entieres aux
Franco-ontariens, ces nouvelles mesures dans
le domaine municipal s'accompliront de plus
en plus aisement.
Encore un domaine d'importance majeure
est l'administration de la justice. II faut
admettre pourtant que l'usage des deux
langues dans ce domaine pose un probleme
assez difficile. Toutefois, une etude appro-
fondie a ete entreprise sur trois possibilites:
1. La possibility que le gouvernement
s'engage a supporter les depenses qu'il faudra
encourir pour des interpretes et des services
de traduction qui seront necessaires dans tout
procede de plaidoirie ou de justice dans les
tribunaux qui se trouvent sous la juridiction
provinciale.
2. Des documents judiciaires bilingues dans
certains districts judiciaires comptant une
population francophone sufBsante.
3. L'encouragement des juges, des avocats,
des greffiers, des sherifs, des huissiers et des
stenographies juridiques de profiter des cours
de langue.
Monsieur l'Orateur, je me permets de ter-
miner cette partie de mon discours en citant
de nouveau le Premier dans son adresse a
Cornwall, l'ete passe. II a fait le resume de
notre progres avec ces quelques mots pleins
de sagesse:
Beaucoup a ete accompli au cours de la
derniere annee pour les citoyens franco-
phones de l'Ontario et du Canada. Quand
les programmes et les politiques adoptees
par tous les gouvernements du Canada
auront atteint leur pleine maturite, nous
aurons deja traverse une immense distance
vers l'elimination des inegalites qui ont
e.xiste pendant de si longues annees. Ces
changements prennent un sens encore plus
significatif quand on considere qu'ils sont
dus a la bonne volonte d'un peuple tra-
vaillant a l'unison, dans un esprit de co-
operation et de comprehension. Nous nous
sommes cherches l'un l'autre et nous avons
reconnu nos communes aspirations. En-
semble done, en tant que residents d'une
grande province, nous continuerons tou-
jours a consacrer nos efforts pour edifier
un Canada plus fort et plus uni que jamais.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat in
English some of what I said in French. I
think it very important and speaking as a
Franco-Ontarian, I would like everybody to
hear what I said in French.
Back in the early 1600's, when trading and
mission posts were built along Ontario water-
ways, an estimated 45,000 Indians were the
sole occupants of what was to become
Ontario.
My ancestors, the French were the first
permanent white settlers. In fact they had
built communities as far west as the Windsor-
Detroit district some 50 years before Canada
came under British rule. Further settlement
came in 1784 when large numbers of United
Empire Loyalists trekked north for refuge
after the American revolt against Britain.
Joining them in breaking new land were
groups of Scots, Irish, Dutch, Swiss and
Germans.
By 1812, when we were threatened by the
British-American War, the population had
reached 80,000. By Confederation in 1867
it had grown to 1.5 million. Today, we
Franco-Ontarians alone total some 725,000,
or roughly ten per cent of the Ontario popu-
lation. Following the majority group of
Anglo-Saxon origin, we Franco-Ontarians are
the largest of Ontario's nine other main ethnic
groups. As a citizen of French origin I con-
sider myself fortunate to be a part of the rich
and varied ethnic mosaic of Ontario.
58
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of pride to me
to list the major ethnic groups that contribute
so importantly to our province's cultural
scene. Ontario is now composed of: Anglo-
Saxon 60 per cent, 4,142,000; French 10 per
cent, 724,000; German/Austrian 7 per cent,
487,000; Italian 4 per cent, 306,000; Dutch
3 per cent, 216,000; Polish 2 per cent,
167,000; Ukrainian 2 per cent, 139,000;
Jewish 1 per cent, 77,000; Scandinavian
1 per cent, 70,000; Native Indian 0.8 per
cent, 56,000.
How fortunate we all are in Ontario to
share in the richness of this heritage.
As a Franco-Ontarian I greeted this gov-
ernment's announcement of August, 1967,
with sincere appreciation. I refer to the
announcement that it is this government's
firm intention to establish a publicly financed
system of French-speaking secondary schools.
Since that announcement I am happy to note
the giant strides that have been taken to carry
out the intention.
A committee on French-language public-
secondary schools has examined the methods
of expanding secondary school instruction in
French. A major recommendation resulting,
suggests that courses already offered in such
schools in French, be extended to include a
complete programme where the number of
students in an area makes such a move
practical.
The legislation to accomplish this historic-
step forward vastly improves the Franco-
Ontarian's educational opportunities. The bills
set out the legal provisions for the establish-
ment of both public and secondary schools.
While the principle of bilingual education
had been previously recognized, until these
bills were presented by the Minister of Edu-
cation, no specific statutory guarantee had
eve* been made for French-language schools
in Ontario.
What will be the objectives of French-
language secondary schools? Just what is it
that the Franco-Ontarian community itself
has said is needed? I will answer these ques-
tions as briefly as I can:
1. The bilingual graduate of a French-
language secondary school should have gained
a knowledge of French that is as complete as
the level of intellectual abilities of the
average student will allow. French is his
mother tongue and should be studied with
cultural as well as pragmatic aims in view.
His knowledge and command of French must
allow him to live fully as a Canadian of
French descent who can benefit from, and
actively take part in, the cultural life of the
French-speaking Canadians and of the mem-
bers of the French world community.
2. The bilingual graduate should have a
sound knowledge of English which will allow
him to: (a) communicate effectively with his
English-speaking compatriots; (b) meet the
competition of English-speaking workers of
equal occupational skill; (c) take part in the
political, civic and social activities of his
community.
3. The bilingual graduate should have
gained an understanding, after having gained
the basic linguistic skills, of the value systems
and cultural patterns of his English-speaking
countrymen.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, the ultimate
objective, now within our grasp, is to assure
every French-speaking student in Ontario the
opportunity to receive his education, from
kindergarten through university and beyond,
in his mother tongue.
In this field of French-language education
it is particularly gratifying to me to see
already examples of voluntary co-operation
between English and French in the area of
secondary education. I refer to the example
of the Ottawa Collegiate Institute board in
agreeing to assume responsibility as of this
fall for Ottawa's seven French-language pri-
vate secondary schools. This was an admir-
able decision taken entirely on the initiative
of the local Ottawa authorities. As well, in
other parts of Ontario, groups of French and
English have set up joint committees to find
the most satisfactory way of operating
French-language secondary schools.
In the past 18 months there have been
many events and significant decisions taken
by Uiis government which held great im-
portance for the Franco-Ontarian community.
These events and decisions helped to wipe
out old animosities which have too often
tainted relations between us in the past. Tjhat
magnificent act of statesmanship by the hon.
Prime Minister, when he instituted the Con-
federation of Tomorrow conference in Novem-
ber, 1967, launched the process on a national
basis.
Ontario, through the acts and statements
of intent of this government, and the states-
manlike concern of the hon. Prime Minister,
has become identified as the champion of
French-speaking Canadians in all provinces
outside Quebec.
Why are we accomplishing so much in
this province? The reason is simple but im-
portant. Many English-speaking Ontarians are
ready and eager to have our province more
NOVEMBER 21, 1968
59
faithfully reflect the mainstreams of our
heritage.
They recognize that Canada has two basic
linguistic cultures. They understand that
diversity is the source of our strength and
the richness of our life.
In Cornwall this past summer the Prime
Minister reiterated our attitude when he
said:
The government of this province has
committed itself to the assurance of full
and equal citizenship for all, regardless
of national or linguistic origin. In doing
so, we have recognized the aspirations of
our French-speaking residents to express
themselves in their own language. We
have demonstrated in many ways and on
many occasions before all Canadians, that
the government of Ontario is prepared to
take and is taking constructive steps to
achieve this end.
What are some of the steps taken? I will
take the Ontario public service as my first
example:
The establishment, by The Department of
Civil Service and The Department of Edu-
cation, of language courses for civil servants
whose duties require a knowledge of French.
All letters received in French by this gov-
ernment will be answered in that language.
All government departments will be en-
couraged to provide bilingual services in
those field offices located in areas where
there is a sufficient concentration of French-
speaking people.
The government will expand the facilities
of its translation bureau, particularly to deal
with French communications.
In a second critical area the government
of Ontario has instituted sound policies with
regard to the use of French and English in
municipal administration. This government is
encouraging the use of both languages in
those communities having a concentration of
French-speaking citizens. In the main, such
places are in eastern and northeastern On-
tario, within the counties and districts of
Stormont, Glengarry, Prescott, Russell, Carle-
ton, Nipissing, Temiskaming, Cochrane, Sud-
bury and Algoma. Also in this category are
communities in southwestern Ontario such
as Penetanguishene on Georgian Bay, Wel-
land and parts of the county of Essex.
Municipalities will be urged to adopt a
number of specific policies such as the em-
ployment of enough bilingual staff to deal
effectively with the public in both languages
in oral and written communications. I will
not detail the many aspects of this policy,
but a helpful example is the provision in both
languages of local official forms and notices
such as assessment notices, tax forms, water
bills and voters' lists.
To some extent these plans for the munici-
pal field represent recognition of existing
situations in a number of municipalities. For
many years several local governments in
eastern Ontario have effectively conducted
much of their business in French. Eastview
and Hawkesbury have provided most munici-
pal services in both languages. With the
efforts underway to ensure a full range of
educational opportunities to Franco-Ontarians,
these new policies in the municipal field will
become easier to accomplish.
Another major area of concern is the ad-
ministration of justice. Admittedly, the use
of two languages in this field is a difficult
problem. However, thorough study of three
possibilities are underway:
1. The provision that the government shall
meet the expenses incurred for interpreters
and translation services in any pleading or
process before courts of provincial jurisdic-
tion.
2. The provision of bilingual court docu-
ments in a designated judicial district having
a large enough French-speaking population.
3. The encouragement of judges, lawyers,
clerks, sheriffs, bailiffs and legal stenogra-
phers to take advantage of language training
facilities.
Mr. Speaker, I will close this section of
my speech with a further quotation from the
hon. Prime Minister, again from his address
in Cornwall this past summer. He summed
up our progress with these wise words:
A great deal has been achieved during
the last year on behalf of the French-
speaking people of Ontario and Canada.
When the programme and policies of all
governments in Canada reach maturity, we
will have travelled a considerable distance
toward removing inequalities which have
existed for many years. The changes are
all the more significant because we have
achieved progress through people of good-
will working together in a spirit of co-
operation. We have sought each other out
and recognized the aspirations of each
other. Together, as residents of a great
province, we are working for a stronger
and more united Canada.
A final point, Mr. Speaker: As a Progressive
Conservative, I note with pride the fact that
among the government members of this
60
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
House, there are more French-speaking mem-
bers by far than the combined total among
the other two political parties represented.
You see, Franco-Ontarians are very shrewd
customers as well. They also know and obvi-
ously appreciate a quality product.
Mr. Speaker, turning from the particular
concerns of a Franco-Ontarian to the more
general and immediately current interest of
the Speech from the Throne, I wish to comp-
liment this government on the wisdom and
economic moderation of its legislative fore-
cast.
I note that one Toronto newspaper, the
Star, has referred to the forecast as an
austerity programme. If that newspaper be-
lieves that austerity consists of not attempting
to buy more than one can immediately afford,
then perhaps its description is correct. But, a
more accurate assessment came from the
Globe and Mail of Wednesday, November
20, 1968, when its lead editorial commented
on the Throne Speech with these words:
It certainly promised full speed ahead
with a number of costly programmes al-
ready underway.
The Globe and Mail also pointed out that
while Ontario is going through a difficult
financial period, its credit position is excel-
lent. The editorial went on to say:
In some respects its (credit position) a
good deal better than that of Ottawa, which
has not only returned to the trough too
often, but has compromised its respecta-
bility with the financial community by
promising . . . and failing to produce . . .
a balanced budget.
Mr. Speaker, I see nothing austere in a pro-
gramme forecast that will change and im-
prove expropriation laws; expand the HOME
programme; amend The Assessment Act to
secure greater efficiency; increase control over
spending by the province, the municipalities,
school boards and universities; review of the
machinery of collective bargaining; establish
a plan to provide a basic standard of services
to all municipalities; make further moves to
strengthen the Ontario Human Rights Code;
establish an educational communications au-
thority; assist children with mental and emo-
tional disorders; propose a Health Protection
Act to prevent and reduce abuses of our
environment in the various fields of pollu-
tion; legislate to improve the production of
food and increase the financial return to
farmers; co-ordinate all northern transporta-
tion policies; revise The Mining Act, and
offer a programme to provide additional
recreation areas and more parks.
Mr. Speaker, if this is austerity, if this was,
as some of the media said, a "no-news"
Throne Speech, I question the news judg-
ments involved. I sometimes feel that the
media, at least in Metropolitan Toronto, are
so close to Queen's Park and the flood of
good news that flows from this government,
that they have become jaded with riches and
in their frustration are often reduced to nit-
picking. In this respect they are similar in
character to the Liberals and NDP.
Speaking of the NDP, Mr. Speaker, I also
offer my congratulations to their leader, the
member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), on
his recent survival at Kitchener.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Belanger: We would have missed his
lengthy criticisms, just as one can learn to
miss a nagging wife.
As we have experienced over the past
quarter century, the NDP's bark is much
more impressive than its bite-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order!
We have had a very quiet and fruitful
afternoon and I would like it to continue and
let this member make his speech without a
continual undertone of noise.
Mr. Belanger: —especially when it comes to
elections. As I suggested, we would have
missed the bark.
Mr. Speaker, this province is the envy of
every state and province in North America
when it comes to legal aid. This humane and
socially progressive system proves this gov-
ernment's concern for the well-being of the
people it serves. Naturally enough our legal
aid programme will have some teething
troubles. One cannot expect otherwise of such
a magnificent and far-reaching programme.
I merely wish to add a word of caution—
a word of caution on the dangers of abuse.
At the same time, I am sure this government
is aware of the danger of abuse and will
exercise every care as it keeps a watchful
eye on the system.
On another topic I warmly welcomed the
announcement by the hon. Robert Welch,
Provincial Secretary, that there would be a
full review of Ontario liquor laws. The Min-
ister indicated his desire and willingness to
seek an enlightened policy with respect to
the control, sale and licensing of liquor. The
present review will, I am confident, bring
progressive new proposals and recommenda-
tions in line with the changing requirements
NOVEMBER 21, 1968
61
and customs of the people of Ontario. In this
review it is my hope the matter of Saturday
evening closing hours will receive attention.
As many of us unfortunately know, licensed
premises must close at 11.30 p.m. Saturday
night. This highly annoying regulation leads
me to slightly change the words to an old
popular song— Saturday night is the lousiest
night of the week.
The present Saturday night closing should
be extended to at least 1.00 a.m., if not 1.30
a.m. Perhaps Saturday evening has no spe-
cial significance to our wealthier citizens, but
I can assure this House that it is immensely
significant to those people of more modest
incomes who make up the majority of our
population. It is particularly significant in a
riding such as Prescott and Russell, where
much of our rural population regard Saturday
night as a time of social communication and
good fellowship. They do not enjoy being
sent home early like children suffering under
parental discipline.
Another particularly annoying matter in
this area is the fact that to acquire a dining
lounge license a specific portion of an estab-
lishment's gross income must come from the
sale of food. As I understand it this portion
is 25 per cent. In some cases it may bend
to allow a slightly smaller percentage but,
in many cases, it remains an unrealistic
figure.
Mr. Speaker, it is simply impossible for
many otherwise suitable establishments to
meet this food-percentage requirement. It
may be reasonable in highly urban areas. In
more rural areas of the province, such as
mine, there is not enough trade in the matter
of meals to ever allow otherwise suitable
premises to secure a dining lounge license.
I am sure the hon. Provincial Secretary (Mr.
Welch) will give his most serious considera-
tion to these two annoying items I have
mentioned. In both cases the regulations are
not in tune with the times, or the people,
or the particular social and geographic
situation.
Mr. Speaker, in closing my speech I in-
tended to sum up the many, many achieve-
ments of the Progressive Conservative gov-
ernments of Ontario— accomplishments that
have brought this province to its number one
place in Canada.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Belanger: But, rather than toot our
own horn, I will end with a simple quotation
from our sister province of Quebec.
On July 17, 1966, a Montreal periodical,
Le Petit Journal, had this to say about our
province:
Without Ontario, Canada would be an
under-developed country and our standard
of living in Quebec would be considerably
lower. Fortunately, Ontario does exist and
no customs office separates Ontario from
Quebec. Furthermore, Ontario's prosperity
is far from being harmful to us.
Mr. J. Jessiman (Fort William): Mr. Speaker,
it is a great honour and privilege for me,
on behalf of the people of Fort William
riding, to second the motion of the hon.
member for Prescott and Russell for the adop-
tion of the Speech from the Throne presented
by the Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor
of Ontario. I believe this is the first occasion
which this honour has been given to a mem-
ber of the Legislature from Fort William
riding.
First of all, I would like to add my con-
gratulations to the many our new Lieutenant-
Governor has already received upon his
appointment as Her Majesty's representative
in Ontario. Despite the negative attitude from
the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha),
I think that the office of Lieutenant-Governor
is one that is worthy of maintaining. Some
members opposite feel that just because
something is old, it is irrelevant, and they
want to change things simply for the sake
of change.
Unkind critics of the member for Sud-
bury have suggested to me that maybe he
really only likes to read about himself in
the press.
Personally, I believe that the office of
Lieutenant-Governor gives to us a link with
our past traditions, which I do not think we
have any reason to view with shame or mis-
givings, and in fact adds a great deal of
colour, interest and history to the opening of
the Legislature.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratu-
late the hon. member for London South (Mr.
White) on his appointment as Minister of
Revenue. I think all would agree that he is
one of the more active and interesting orators
in the House and his background and experi-
ence in economics and business and as a
writer qualify him for the important position
he now holds in the affairs of this province.
I would like, too, at this time, to say to
you, Mr. Speaker, that we in this chamber
have been very impressed with the way in
which you have carried out your responsibili-
ties. Certainly your duties require a great
62
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
deal of patience and are not made easier by
some of our actions. Nevertheless, your fair-
ness in rulings, your subtle humour and your
firmness in handling the operations of this
House all characterize a broad ability which
all members respect.
While it is not always customary to say
nice words about members of the Opposition
parties, and in particular the leader of the
Opposition, I would on this occasion, break
with that custom and thank the hon. member
for Brant (Mr. Nixon) for the kind words he
extended to our colleague, the hon. member
for Middlesex South (Mr. Olde). All of us, I
am sure, are happy to see him up and around
again, in good health, and serving his con-
stituents so vigorously and well as he has
done since 1963.
Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on
those events which took place at a roller
skating rink in Kitchener last weekend.
Firstly, let me congratulate the member for
York South (Mr. MacDonald) on his retention
of the leadership of his group. While we in
this party do not get overly excited about
things that take place in minority class politi-
cal groups— sprinkled with a handful of op-
portunists, some of them absent this after-
noon—most of us have a high regard for the
member for York South and it is good to see
him return to his same place at the opening
of this Legislature even though he may be
missing right now. However, in his absence,
Mr. Speaker, I do think that it should be
placed on the record, that 31 per cent of the
delegates, or almost one out of every three,
rejected him as their leader, and it is also
significant that over 25 per cent of his own
caucus, or one of every four socialist members
of the Legislature, say to him, "Donald, go
home, we do not need you."
Why then, do his own people, his own
friends, rise up to smite him? I suggest, Mr.
Speaker, that one of the major reasons is that
the hon. member for York South has created
a belie vability gap that is reaching gigantic
proportions. We remember in the election
campaign of 1967 his slogan-67 in '67. Well,
he got 20 seats— a full 47 short of his predic-
tion. His error gap or believability gap was
70 per cent off. He said the socialists were
going to win in 1955, in 1959, in 1963 and in
1967. In fact, the socialists won none. Thus,
the believability gap is now 100 per cent. I
will send the member for York South a copy.
Now, he talks about winning in 1971. What
nonsense! No wonder his friends want to push
him out. They do not believe him and neither
do the people of Ontario and particularly the
people of Fort William.
Quite frankly, with friends like the ones he
normally has sitting beside him and behind
him, the socialists in my view will be quite
lucky to win seven seats in 1971. This is not
my own view or the view of our side of the
House, but this is what 31 per cent of the
delegates to his convention said and 25 per
cent of his own MPPs say. To quote the
member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), "There
is no will." And further, as the member for
Riverdale said in Toronto on November 12,
"Face up to the fact that MacDonald's lead-
ership as it has been is not good enough for
victory in 1971."
Mr. Speaker, just one more comment on
the three-ring circus of socialist politics. The
member for Riverdale charged in St. Thomas
on November 4 that all full-time paid repre-
sentatives of the United Steelworkers and
United Packinghouse Workers were told to
get out and support and work for the member
for York South in his bid to retain his group's
leadership. If they did not, according to the
member for Riverdale, they would lose their
jobs. This is a very serious charge. Here, we
have a group that pretends to support the
working man, yet through fear and coercion
their union representatives are told to work
for MacDonald or they lose their jobs. Says
the member for Riverdale, and I am quoting
him now from an article-
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hope all
information brought to this assembly will be
accurate information. The statement made by
the member for Riverdale in St. Thomas was
a statement carefully prepared, carefully
assessed and accurately stated, not what the
member for Fort William said, "that all paid
members of United Packinghouse Workers
and the United Steelworkers of America. . ."
It simply stated members of District No. 6—
not all members, Mr. Speaker—and members
of the national office of United Packinghouse
Workers, whose correct name now is Cana-
dian Food and Allied Workers, I believe, Mr.
Speaker. Thank you
Mr. Jcssiman: I thank the member for those
kind words but I am sending over, Mr.
Speaker, the actual photostatic copy out of
the paper, and I quote:
"Any staff representative of those two
unions who supports me or campaigns for
me does so at the risk of his job."
NOVEMBER 21, 1968
63
We in this party have argued for many years
that the membership of organized labour, the
rank and file, have been taken to the cleaners
by the NDP. We have argued that money
forced out of the rank and file by—
(a) The political check-off system;
(b) The so-called political action groups
within the unions who use rank and file funds
without their consent to distribute socialist
propaganda;
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Jessiman: Squirm, Donald, squirm.
(c) Union organizers whose pay cheques
are made up out of the rank and file member-
ship fees are forced to work in election cam-
paigns without consent of the rank and file-
most of whom do not and will not support
the NDP— is against all principles of common
decency and the right of the union members
to be free to vote and support political parties
of their own choosing without coercion or
arm twisting.
Now we find the disease of political fear
and coercion being used by the leader of the
NDP and his friends in a purely internal
affair of the NDP group. In other words,
here we have union dues which partly go to
pay the salaries of union organizers-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: It is understood that in the
House on occasions such as this there would
l)e a certain amount of interference with the
speaker, but this is most unseemly and I
would ask the members, particularly on Mr.
Speaker's left, to give this meml^er the op-
portunity of making his point. As we all
know here, in due course every member will
have an opportunity to speak in this debate
and the rebuttals can be made.
Mr. Jessiman: Let the record show that the
charge being made that union representatives
must support and work for the member for
York South or lose their jobs was not made by
a Progressive Conservative, or by a Liberal,
but by the deputy leader of the New Demo-
cratic Party, the member for Riverdale.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to the
subject of northern Ontario. We have heard
a great deal of talk by the Opposition in con-
nection with government policies for this
part of Ontario. Much of this talk is simply
centred around slogans designed to capture
votes. Most of the talk is negative, but all
of this talk, all of this electioneering, is very
separatist in its nature.
Let me say at the outset that the people of
northern Ontario do not want an eleventh
province. Despite the Opposition parties'
attempt to fan a movement in this direction
so as to capture a few votes, northern On-
tario is, and will remain, an integral part of
Ontario— economically, culturally and socially.
In a few minutes, I am going to outline
some of the areas which the Ontario govern-
ment has brought forward, imaginative and
constructive proposals for the development
of the north country. But before I do, I
want to read into the record that the federal
L. lxr.il member for Kenora-Rainy River on
November 18 asked the Prime Minister of
Canada to place on the agenda of the federal-
provincial conference in Ottawa next month,
the question of northern Ontario and northern
Quebec becoming an eleventh province. Also,
another separatist in northern Ontario— in fact
the man who is making the most noise— is a
character by the name of Donald McKinnon.
He is well known to the leader of the Oppo-
sition—he was the provincial Liberal candidate
in 1967 for the riding of Cochrane South. I
might mention here that he got some 3,000
votes out of a total of 20,000 that were cast.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to the
positive record of the Ontario government
and its policies of the north. I intend to
deal at some length this afternoon on this
record and to say that we in this party have
not neglected the north as the Opposition
members like to believe. I will be the first
to admit that many programmes need to be
expanded and new programmes will have to
be pursued and implemented. But I also
suggest that we have accomplished, through
good government, programmes that are both
more realistic and more extensive than the
election campaign groaning of Liberals and
socialists. They offer pessimism when our
party offers opportunity. They offer cam-
paign oratory and promises; we offer action
and progress.
Now to the defence of that record.
It is only fitting that at the start we review
and examine the educational opportunities
opened up to the north by the Ontario Pro-
gressive Conservative government.
Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, northern On-
tario was a rough, demanding country with
drifts of snow and perishing cold in the
winter and a summer of sultry heat and vora-
cious flies. One had to be an intrepid hunter,
explorer, miner or adventurer to risk the
hazards of climate and terrain.
Now the northland has a new image. As
life in northern Ontario has progressed be-
yond the elemental struggle for survival, man
64
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
has conquered his environment and brought
the riches and refinements of civilization to
the new north. At the hub of the learning,
growing process is education.
Two new universities, Lakehead University
in Port Arthur and Laurentian University in
Sudbury, have very special opportunities to
offer to the students of northern Ontario.
Lakehead University, for example, in co-
operation with the Fort William and Port
Arthur school boards and symphony orches-
tra, have set up a unique programme in
musical education, under the direction of
Boris Brott, the brilliant young Canadian
who, at 24, became assistant conductor of the
New York Philharmonic. This year, the
Princeton string quartet, as Lakehead's musi-
cians in residence, are giving a total of 2,400
teaching hours to the local elementary schools
and will play a total of 240 concerts in north-
ern communities from Kenora to Marathon.
In this way the children and the citizens of
the northland are benefiting from the best in
musical training and appreciation.
As part of an effort to push the boundaries
of habitable territory even further north,
Lakehead has taken over a Department of
Lands and Forests outpost 100 miles north
of the Lakehead, near Lake Nipigon for
study of the boreal forest. At the Black
Sturgeon research centre, northern Ontario
students will undertake environmental studies
in forestry, biology, zoology and archaeology.
Mr. Speaker, among Lakehead University's
new programmes designed for the needs of
the local community, is a chemical engineer-
ing diploma programme oriented around and
towards the nu\p and paper industry. Lake-
head also offers courses in mining engineer-
ing technology and a variety of courses in
forestry. It has also recently initiated its first
master's degree programmes in four disci-
plines — English, physics, psychology and
mathematics. The new science and technol-
ogy building houses an IBM model 40 com-
puter which can be used by staff and students.
Symbolic of the high degree of imaginative
planning that characterizes the development
of the north and of this university is its $24
million programme of construction on the
shores of a man-made lake that will provide
skating in the winter and swimming in the
summer.
Mr. Speaker, to finance these projects, the
government of Ontario, through its Depart-
ment of University Affairs, is providing dur-
ing the 1968-1969 fiscal year a total of more
than $13 million in capital and operating
grants.
Laurentian University in Sudbury, being
bilingual, expresses in a different way the
quality and needs of the new cultural atmos-
phere of the Ontario north. This university
is now offering a bilingual degree in all its
programmes— the first in North America to do
so— fulfilling one of its aims of encouraging
our dual French-English culture both, inside
and outside the classroom. It is receiving
provincial government support during 1968-
1969 of a total of more than $9 million." The
Laurentian faculty of arts and science now
has seven colleges, including Algoma in Sault
Ste. Marie and Nipissing in North Bay.
Besides courses in chemical, civil and
metallurgical engineering, Laurentian offers
one of Ontario's first undergraduate degrees
in social work, which will prepare qualified
social workers for community services, gov-
ernment and industry. In another co-opera-
tive venture with the Sudbury community,
Laurentian's labs are being used for cardio-
thoracic research.
This will give some idea of the new climate
and attitude that prevails in the north.
Spurred on by the momentum of the victory
over the hostile environment, man has gone
on to higher aspirations of development and
improvement in his universities and colleges
and the total life of the community.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of this new sense
of challenge in the north, the government of
Ontario, in co-operation with the federal
government and with the enthusiastic support
of Canadian industry and Ontario's northern
universities, has envisioned a mid-Canada
development corridor. The Lakehead cities
are the only large population centres so, not
unnaturally, the conference next August on
this topic will be held in Port Arthur. Such
a plan could realize dreams that last cen-
tury's most visionary explorer could never
have foreseen: dreams of a northland vigor-
ous, expanding, challenging, to meet the
needs of Canada's people, both in terms of
the land and its burgeoning natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, The Department of Educa-
tion, in pursuing its policy of ensuring equal
educational opportunity for all children
throughout Ontario, has given special atten-
tion to our rich and developing northland.
This is well exemplified in its handling of
the special circumstances of the north in
the reorganization of school jurisdictions that
is now in progress. Here, the particular prob-
lems arise from the nature of the area— a
mix of highly developed urban centres with
mining and other communities that are scat-
tered and somewhat isolated in large tracts
NOVEMBER 21, 1968
65
of territory. For this reason, as you know,
guidelines for the special concerns of the
north in this process of reorganization were
provided in an independent document that
was published separately.
In the coming year 1969. much effort will
lie devoted in the north to this reorganization
of boards and administration. In the terri-
torial districts, new boards of education for
the divisions and new separate school boards
for enlarged zones will as ume operational
control of the schools on January 1, 1969,
and will appoint their own supervisory officers.
The Department of Education will provide
ail possible assistance in the reorganization
and will adjust its supervisory services for
school boards in isolated areas which will
not be included in new divisions or zones.
It is our aim that these changes shall bring
a new impetus and vigour to education in
northern Ontario, just as in the south.
I want to refer at this point to an aspect
of education in the north to which the gov-
ernment attaches great importance— the col-
leges of applied arts and technology.
Along with the establishment of new
colleges in other parts of the province, The
Department of Education has now in opeia-
tion campuses of colleges of applied arts and
technology at the Lakehead, Kirkland Lake,
Hailcybury, South Porcupine, Sault Ste
Marie, Sudbury and North Bay. In these new
colleges, approximately 2,650 full-time day
students and 2,000 part-time and extension
students are enrolled. And in addition to
these I have just mentioned there is, in
Kenera, Confederation College, operating a
number of classes.
Among the varied courses offered in these
institutions, there are programmes in the
fields of trade, technician training, technol-
ogy, applied arts and science, and business.
In most cases plans are well developed for
permanent buildings and on some campuses
construction is under way or has been com-
pleted.
I should like next to draw the attention
of the Hcu e to a number of educational
developments which have special local sig-
nificance. One of the most important groups
of citizens in our society today is our Indian
people. We in the northern part of this
great province harbour the province's largest
percentage cf these first citizens. Many people
have pointed out that we have an Indian
problem.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out to you
that this is not the case. I feel that we have
a white problem in that so many varieties of
missionaries, social workers, and politicians
with preconceived ideas who work for Indians,
do more harm than good, because they are
working for their own satisfaction, seeking
publicity which is always available when
one assists minority groups.
The government of this province has
shown a tremendous desire and has made
great strides in assuring that the social bene-
fits of our society are available to these
people, in spite of the feelings of the federal
government and their complete lack of co-
operation in this particular field.
One has only to lock at the recent mem-
bers' tour of northwestern Ontario. There
we saw the Minister of Social and Family
Services (Mr. Yaremko) break away from
those enjoying the beauty and the interesting
tours to visit and examine first hand the
problems of these sincere people.
This dedicated Minister cf the Crown
accompanied by the member for Kenora (Mr.
Bernier), spent every available moment talk-
ing, looking, and planning ways to place
these, our first citizens, on a level in our
society that is taken by the rest of us for
granted.
Steps are being taken to provide improved
education for Indian residents of Ontario.
The educational centre at Moosonee is near-
ing completion and it will lie officially opened
next June. This centre serves the elementary
school children in certain subjects outside the
scope of the public and separate schools and
it offers academic upgrading and manpower
training to adults. The director supervises a
total staff of 23. The board of governors
employs people of Indian descent wherever
possible.
On the CNR main line to the north of
Lake Nipigon, new schools, each of two
rooms, have been erected during the past
summer at Auden, where a one-room school
has been replaced, and at Fcrland, where
previously no school existed. In both these
localities the federal and Onlario govern-
ments share the financial responsibility.
It is gratifying to note, throughout the
north as well as the southern part of the
province, that Indian bands are asking for
an appointed representative on school boards
and these requests are being granted and
guaranteed by the boards which provide edu-
cation for Indian pupils.
In no-theastern Ontario several boards
have organized French-language schools in
temporary or leased accommodation, for
French-pealing pupils who formerly at-
tended private, French-language schools.
66
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
These schools will also augment the French-
language instruction which has been given
for several years in such places as Chelms-
ford and Sturgeon Falls where both English-
speaking and French-speaking pupils have
enjoyed the benefits of a composite school
programme. The board's concern in 1969
will be planning for permanent accommoda-
tion for the French-language schools and for
some in which both English and French will
be used.
Commencing in 1969, parents of elementary
school pupils living outside the boundaries
of school sections and zones where daily bus
service is not available, may apply for a
travelling or living allowance to the school
board providing the education.
In isolated communities in the northern
districts, 25 teachers are working in one- or
two-room schools under the northern corps.
The department subsidizes their travel and
provides a northern allowance in addition to
a salary paid by the board. Six schools, each
of one or two rooms, have qualified for
this assistance for the first time in the cur-
rent school year.
May I turn now to another aspect of
education in the north, which is one of the
special concerns of the Ontario government
there as it is elsewhere in the province— the
services for the blind and deaf. In 1963 the
first home-visiting teacher of pre-school deaf
children was appointed. The initial service
was so successful that six such home-visiting
teachers are now at work. I should point
out, I think, that the teachers who have
received special training for this activity
average almost 1,000 miles a month by car
plus air travel.
Two teachers concentrate their efforts in
northern Ontario. The programme has two
purposes: To prepare young deaf children
for admission to school, and to assist the
parents in the training of their own young
deaf child at home.
The Department of Education intends to
expand this programme gradually so that
home visits may be more frequent. In this
way, young pre-school deaf children in
northern and rural Ontario, and their parents,
will benefit from the assistance of profes-
sionally trained teachers of the deaf while
remaining together as a family in their own
homes.
The provincial Department of Education
also helps maintain schools for retarded chil-
dren in 11 northern Ontario districts. Since
April, 1966, we have provided educational
programmes in special classes within Ontario
Department of Health hospital facilities, for
groups of children who include the mentally
retarded and those who are physically, so-
cially and emotionally disturbed. One of
these schools is located in the Ontario Hos-
pital at Port Arthur.
With the co-operation of The Department
of Health, occupational therapy, kitchen,
library, ceramics and sewing areas are being
made available to the school for instructional
purposes.
Mr. Jessiman moves the adjournment of
the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow
we will resume this debate.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 o'clock p.m.
No. 4
ONTARIO
^Legislature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Friday, November 22, 1968
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Friday, November 22, 1968
Medical practitioners from liability in respect of voluntary emergency medical services,
bill to relieve, Mr. Sargent, first reading 69
Ethics of elected representatives, bill respecting, Mr. Shulman, first reading 69
Ontario Hydro development at Pickering, question to Mr. Simonett, Mr. Nixon 69
Sale of HOME lots in Hamilton, question to Mr. Randall, Mr. J. R. Smith 70
Closing of Murray Avenue at QEW in Grimsby area, question to Mr. Comme, Mr. Deans 70
Safety problems re "dune buggies," questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Breithaupt 71
Universal mine claiming tag, question to Mr. A. F. Lawrence, Mr. Knight 71
Appointment of Crown attorney for Halton county, questions to Mr. Wishart,
Mr. Shulman 71
Assessment advantages by municipalities to attract industries, questions to Mr. McKeough,
Mr. Pitman 72
Expo '70 exhibit in Japan, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Sargent 76
Increases in apartment rents, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Sargent 77
Beaver Valley area, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Sargent 77
Construction and maintenance costs of schools, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. De Monte 79
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Jessiman 80
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Nixon, agreed to 90
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 90
69
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 10.30 o'clock, a.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests students from the follow-
ing schools: In the east gallery, from St.
Philip Neri separate school, Downsview, and
Winchester Street public school, Toronto;
and later on today in the west gallery, Don
Mills junior high school, Don Mills.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
RELIEF FROM LIABILITY
OF MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to relieve
medical practitioners from liability in respect
of voluntary emergency medical services.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
ETHICS OF ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting
ethics of elected representatives.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, this bill pro-
hibits certain conduct on the part of legis-
lators, and requires disclosure of interests and
activities that cannot reasonably be prohi-
bited but whose nature and extent should be
public knowledge.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the
hon. Minister of Energy and Resources Man-
agement concerning the Ontario Hydro devel-
opment at Pickering. I wonder if he can tell
the House how far behind in the construction
they are of the atomic energy site in Pick-
ering?
Friday, November 22, 1968
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
relative to the original in-service date estab-
lished at the time the Pickering generation
station was authorized, the first unit is ten
months behind, the second unit five months
behind, and the third and fourth units are
predicted on time. The reasons are: first, late
delivery of important components; second,
effect of our strike last year.
Mr. Speaker, it may be noted that the same
information was given by me to the leader of
the Opposition in this House on May 7, 1968.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, surely in reply to
the gratuitous comment in addition to the
answer you will permit me to say that much
time has elapsed since that particular occa-
sion; and surely, with the good weather that
we have had in the summer and fall, we
would have hoped for an improvement in the
situation.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister to whom the
hon. member for York South (Mr. MacDon-
ald) is directing his question is not in, I
believe, this morning and will not be in until
Monday.
Hon. J. H. White (Minister of Revenue):
Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. In the
Metro final edition of this morning's Globe
and Mail, on page one, there is an article
headed, "Ontario Suggests Federal Budget
May Prevent Succession Duty Cut". This
heading is completely inaccurate. The lead
reads as follows:
Because of "the radical changes brought
about by the Benson budget" Ontario will
be forced to reconsider raising the exemp-
tions on succession duties to $96,000 from
$75,000, Provincial Revenue Minister John
White said last night."
This lead is completely misleading. It is mis-
leading because the word "reconsider" is used
instead of "review" and because one only of
the 56 recommendations of the Smith com-
mittee and select committee report was
singled out. The method I chose to ensure
that what I did sav would be accurate and
70
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
non-controversial, was to read the question
of the leader of the Opposition and quote
my reply. And I would like that to be very
clear.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamil-
ton Mountain.
Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Trade and Development.
When are the HOME lots going to be
offered for sale to the public in Hamilton?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Speaker, we always have
the answers.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Has
the Minister got the houses?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Just listen carefully. Do
not get confused.
HOME lots in the Ralston neighbourhood
in Hamilton will be offered within a week
of Ontario Housing Corporation receiving
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's
approval of the lot values which have been
proposed for the area.
As hon. members know, the primary pur-
pose of the HOME plan is to make lots avail-
able to potential homeowners on a leasehold
basis. However, it is necessary to establish
a land value at the inception because every
lessee who decides, after a period of five
years, that he wishes to purchase a lot, may
do so at the original established value with-
out regard to any increases in land values in
the area which may have taken place during
the intervening period.
Land values are also required for the very
small number of homeowner applicants who
wish to purchase lots at the inception either
on a cash basis or over a period of up to 35
years.
We expect to receive Central Mortgage
and Housing Corporation's approval within a
week, and as the Ontario Housing Corpora-
tion mobile sales office is already on the site,
lots will be advertised and offered to the
public within a matter of days from receiv-
ing the approval.
Mr. MacDonald: Why does the Minister
not answer the question?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I answered the question.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
worth.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. I have a—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! The hon. mem-
ber for Wentworth has the floor.
Mr. Deans: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of Highways. I hope
that he can get to the point much more
quickly than his friend, the Minister of Trade
and Development.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member will
place his question.
Mr. Deans: In the interest of public safety,
will the Minister order the closing of Murray
Avenue where it enters the Queen Elizabeth
Highway at Grimsby?
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, before answering this question
I want to tell the House that the hon. Pro-
vincial Secretary (Mr. Welch) has pursued
this matter with myself and our department
on several occasions.
Mr. MacDonald: That is irrelevant.
Hon. Mr. Gomme: He just happens to be
the member down there.
Interjections by hon. members^
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Gomme: The Ontario Municipal
Eoard, by order No. PFM-9327/59, approved
the closing of Murray Avenue and Kerman
Avenue in the town of Grimsby with certain
conditions which included the following:
The Department of Highways construct
the following service roads in this particular
area: 1. On the north side of the Queen
Elizabeth Way between Ofield Road and
Murray Avenue; 2. On the south side of the
Queen Elizabeth Way from the west limit of
the township of North Grimsby to Murray
Avenue; 3. On the south side of the Queen
Elizabeth Way from Murray Avenue to Pat-
ten Street; 4. A connection between Elizabeth
and Ontario Street on a right-of-way to be
provided by the town of Grimsby; 5. And
subject to the construction by The Depart-
ment of Highways of a number of slip-ons
and slip-offs, an interchange to provide the
necessary movements off the Queen Elizabeth
Way to the abutting adjacent service roads.
The department during the resurfacing of
the Queen Elizabeth Way to the west of
Grimsby in 1968 provided left-turn lanes at
Kerman and Murray Avenues in the median
strip in order to improve the safety of the
intersection. Any left turning vehicles are
then able to be cleared of the through lanes
while awaiting an opportunity to make the
left turn.
NOVEMBER 22, 1968
71
At the present time, the department is pre-
paring contract drawings for the construction
of the necessary service roads, structures and
interchanges in this area and the contracts
will be called as soon as plans have been
prepared and the necessary clearances ob-
tained.
Mr. Deans: I wonder if the Minister would
accept a supplementary question? Does he
anticipate that this would be done prior to
next summer's heavy traffic?
Hon. Mr. Comme: Mr. Speaker, I have
already explained when we intend to do it.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the hon. Min-
ister of Transport.
Has the department studied the safety
problems of those rebuilt small cars which
are now being popularly used on sand dunes
and rough terrain and are known as "dune
buggies"? Has the department investigated
the death of Paul Lightowlers of Ayr, On-
tario, who died on August 19, 1968, from
injuries received in a crash of a dune buggy?
Is consideration being given for special
licensing and inspection of these vehicles so
that the enjoyment by the owners and drivers
is balanced by the public interest and safety?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, if these reconstructed vehicles
referred to as "dune buggies" are operated on
the highways they must be registered and
must comply with all the requirements of
The Highway Traffic Act. In the case of a
reconstructed vehicle, before it can be regis-
tered, a certificate of fitness is required.
I am sorry, I do not have particulars with
respect to the fatality mentioned by the hon.
member at this time. I will look it up and
if I can find the details I will inform the
hon. member.
The department does not have plans for
special licensing or regulations respecting
these vehicles at this time.
If I have been deficient in any answer, sir,
I would be happy to discuss the matter
further with the hon. member because I
would like to answer his question as fully as
I can.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-
Riverside (Mr. Burr)? His question will have
to be deferred until the Prime Minister (Mr.
Robarts) is present.
The member for Port Arthur.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Mines.
Has a decision been made yet on a uni-
versal mining claim tag for the province to
permit prospectors to purchase tags at their
local mine recording office for staking in any
other part of the province, as we recom-
mended in the estimates last session and as
subsequently endorsed by the Northwestern
Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure what the
"royal we" is to which the hon. member is
referring, but I can say in answer to the
question that government policy will be
announced in this House in due course.
Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the
Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, in five parts.
1. Is Mr. Douglas Latimer to be appointed
Crown attorney for Halton county?
2. Did his position as president of the
Halton Progressive Conservative Association
have anything to do with his appointment?
3. What is the salary he is to be paid?
4. What was the salary that was offered to
special Crown prosecutor Ronald Thomas,
former acting Crown attorney, to take the
same position?
5. Why was Thomas not offered the same
salary as has been offered to Mr. Latimer?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Latimer was appointed
on November 21, 1968; his appointment is to
become effective on December 15, 1968.
The answer to the second part of the
question is "no".
The starting salary for Mr. Latimer is
$16,775. That is the minimum starting salary
for a Crown attorney, class 2, which has a
maximum of $20,010.
The salary offered to Mr. Thomas was
$14,349. That is the first step of the starting
salary in a Crown attorney, class 1, which
moves to a maximum of $16,755.
The answer to the fifth part of the ques-
tion: Mr. TJiomas was not offered the same
salary as Mr. Latimer because Mr. Latimer
had seven years' more experience at the Bar
having been called in 1957, while Mr. Thomas
was called in 1964. The one man, therefore,
has four years' experience, the other man had
eleven years of experience at the Bar and
was an assistant Crown attorney for a num-
ber of those years. In our view these are
factors we have to take into account. In say-
ing that I would like to say, Mr. Speaker,
72
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that this is no reflection on our appreciation
of the abilities of either man; it is simply a
matter of experience.
I do make clear the point that we were
able to classify Mr. Latimer as a Crown attor-
ney, class 2, which carries its salary as fixed,
and the other man would have to start at
Crown attorney 1?
Mr. Shulman: Would the Minister accept
a supplementary question? Can the Minister
inform me if Mr. Thomas did not, in effect,
have more experience as a Crown attorney
than the man who was given the opportunity?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, I would say, cer-
tainly not. As I pointed out, the one man
has seven years' more experience than the
other.
Mr. Shulman: I asked if Mr. Thomas did
not have more experience as a Crown attor-
ney.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Thomas has served
in our office, on our staff in this building,
and only occasionally as Crown attorney.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peter-
borough.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to direct a question to
the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
1. Is it illegal for a municipality to give
assessment advantages or grant bonuses in
order to attract industry?
2. If the town of Trenton has been carry-
ing on these activities, as indicated in the
report of the Eric Hardy Consulting Com-
pany Limited, would the Minister indicate
what steps he proposes to take?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the
first part of the question, it is, of course,
illegal for a municipality to give assessment
advantages or grant bonuses in order to
attract industry. Section 248(a) of The Muni-
cipal Act forbids this practice. I unfortunately
do not have a copy of the report of Eric
Hardy Consulting Limited which you have
referred to. We tried to get in touch with
Mr. Hardy this morning to get a copy of the
report. He is out of town. When I do have
a copy of the report I will get in touch with
the member.
Mr. Pitman: May I ask a supplementary
question? Could the Minister indicate what
steps he would be likely to take if indeed
the statements included in this report are
those as reported by the press? Perhaps he
might also indicate what steps his colleague,
the Minister of Trade and Development,
might take, in view of the fact that this
municipality is receiving grants under the
EIO programe?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the second
part of your supplementary question should
be directed to the Minister of Trade and
Development.
As far as the first part of the question is
concerned, it is rather hypothetical. When I
have the report and have had a chance to
look into it then I will decide what we will
do about it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-
Bruce has some questions.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question to
the Minister of Trade and Development.
I think that he either owes the House an
apology or—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member
will place his question.
Mr. Sargent: Regarding a question yester-
day Mr. Speaker, on a—
Mr. Speaker: Well, we are now in today's
question period.
Mr. Sargent: On a point of privilege!
Mr. Speaker: We are in the question period
for today. If the hon. member wishes to
rise on a point of personal privilege he is
entitled to do so but he is not entitled to
do so in the guise of asking a question.
Mr. Sargent: I will leave the question for
a moment then. On a point of privilege, the
situation with regard to yesterday's question:
The Minister told the House a half truth,
and then in a report in the Globe and Mail
this morning, he told the press that it is their
practice to loan ODC loans to well estab-
lished firms if they could prove the need for
it— and they are well established. He can
mislead the House but he should not mis-
lead the newspapers. Mr. Speaker, he did
not tell the newspapers that this money is
not available to any firm or persons who can
borrow some place else. This is a well estab-
lished firm, but they received a loan from
this government, through ODC, which is
forgiveable.
This is what he did not tell the papers.
I think he owes this House an apology. Why
can Holiday Inn and Caswell borrow money
from the government when they have other
sources of money?
NOVEMBER 22, 1968
73
An hon. member: Like cash in the bank. Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Mr. Sargent: Like cash, and on top of that,
the government makes it forgiveable; at the
end of the six-year term they get their money
back. It does not cost them anything.
Hon, Mr. White: The member would not
have a little vested interest?
Mr. Sargent: So I think the Minister owes
the House an apology or he should tell the
press that he did not tell them the whole
truth.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Minister
now has the opportunity if he wishes, to
comment on it.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, as usual,
I think the hon. member for Grey-Bruce is
thoroughly confused. In the first place I did
not see the Globe and Mail this morning and
I am not at all confused. I know exactly
what I said. If it is a forgiveness loan I
would remind you that we have given for-
giveness loans to companies that have several
millions of dollars, perhaps more than Mr.
Caswell will ever have. If Mr. Caswell has
gone into a designated area he is entided to
the same treatment as some of these com-
panies that have many millions of dollars of
capital.
Now, any man who has a balance sheet
can walk into the Ontario Development Cor-
poration; he can present it and we say to
him, "Have you tried to borrow money from
two other sources?" If the man says "Yes,
and I was turned down", we ask "Have you
gone to the Industrial Development Bank?"
If he says "Yes, and I was turned down",
then we will take a look at it and see if
there is some way we can lend him money.
There is nothing wrong with this.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, this is a com-
plete-
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member will
retain his seat and give the Minister the
opportunity of making his explanation. The
Minister gave the member the opportunity
of making his point of privilege.
Mr. Sargent: He is not telling the truth,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Has the Minister anything
further to say?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, as far as
I am concerned I explained my position so
he can go ahead.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Point of order, Mr.
Speaker. I resent, as a member of this
House, being insulted by the hon. Minister
rising here and giving us a lot of balderdash
about borrowing money when people to
whom he lent money were making profits
that ran into three figures, into millions;
that is, hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
An hon. member: That is a point of order?
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! The hon mem-
ber has made his point of order. He will
return to his seat.
Does the hon. member for Grey-Bruce wish
to proceed with his questions?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, may I rise
on a point of order? I listened to my hon.
friend in the back row there say that these
companies make hundreds of millions of
dollars. May I remind him that the amount of
money a company earns has nothing to do
with whether they qualify to go into a desig-
nated area. The more money they have the
better. We like to see them in a designated
area because they have got staying power.
Mr. MacDonald: Well why does not the
Minister encourage them to use their own
money instead of dipping into the public
Treasury?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Keep your mouth shut
a minute and I will answer you too. Do not
get excited.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, is that parliamentary language? Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister is on a
point of order at the moment. When he has
finished his—
Mr. MacDonald: On a point of personal
privilege, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: When the hon. Minister has
finished his point of order, then the hon.
member will be entitled to raise his point.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Forget it!
I was making the point, Mr. Speaker, that
in the federal designated-area programme,
many companies that went into my hon.
friend's riding in Grey-Bruce were companies
74
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of very substantial means and they qualified
for that designated-area programme-
Mr. Sargent: We are not talking about that.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Regardless of their
wealth they qualify because they met the
requirements of a designated area. And the
same applies for ODC.
Mi*. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I ask for
your guidance. Is it parliamentary for one
member to tell another member to shut his
mouth?
Mr. Speaker: It is not usually considered so.
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, sir.
An hon. member: Only when the govern-
ment does it.
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr.
Speaker, I have a point of order and it is a
serious one. It is that I think the point of
order relates to the matter in which the ques-
tions are put and the questions are answered,
and the answers of the Minister of Trade and
Development— two answers, Mr. Speaker; first
the written prepared answer and, secondly,
the answer given spontaneously by him— indi-
cate to me that the procedures and rules of
the question period should be completely re-
viewed and overhauled and that the answers
of the Minister should be spontaneous and
unwritten, and those will be the answers
which appear on the record as being true
answers.
Mr. Speaker: May I say to the hon. mem-
ber that I am also of the opinion that there
can be improvements made in the question
period. And I can assure him that when Mr.
Speaker's House committee meets, I hooe
next week, we will be glad to discuss it and
see if there are any changes we can suggest
to the House in that regard.
The hon. member for Port Arthur— on a
point of order?
Mr. Knight: On a point of privilege and in
connection with the subject at hand, I feel
that because of the manner in which Mr.
Speaker's office rules on the questions which
are submitted beforehand, I may have been
discriminated against today. I had a question
which I wished to put to the House here per-
taining to the fact that the Speech from the
Throne was not given in French as well as in
English, and I was told that the question was
not accepted by Mr. Speaker's office. The
reason given to me was that questions which
start with the phrase "in view of" would not
be accepted and also that the preamble to my
question was too long.
However, I find if we check yesterday's
roster of questions we will find that my hon.
colleague, the member for Downsview (Mr.
Singer), in his second question, which was
addressed to the Attorney General, opened
with the form "in view of", and not only that
but he had a second "in view of" on the
second line, and had a preamble which was
considerably longer than mine. So I feel that
in some way I have been cut off from a
question which I deem to be extremely
important.
Mr. Speaker: I would be pleased to clarify
the matter for the member for Port Arthur.
The reasons which he has put to the House
and which perhaps were conveyed to him
by my staff were not the reasons for the
question being sent back for revision. We
have heard considerable this morning about
politics in answers, and it is my view, aoting
on behalf of all the members here, so far as
is in my control, originally at least, that these
are not to be political meetings.
It is true we must have party politics in it,
but the reason the question was sent back to
the member was that the preamble which he
had was obviously an attack on the govern-
ment by way of a question. All the question
period is for, is for asking the question. I
requested that this "in view of" preamble be
taken out and the question itself be left there.
That is the ruling that was made by Mr.
Speaker, and I think it is a fair ruling, and
a ruling which we have used in the past,
myself and my predecessors in office. It is
a ruling which, unless there is some different
direction from the House, we will continue
to enforce.
I also realize there is the problem of the
answers to these questions, and as I said to
the member for Windsor West, I do think
there is some need for a re-examination of
our procedures and I am quite prepared to
initiate that. I have already had the leader
of the third party, the member for York
South, in touch with me with respect to these
matters.
I would have been delighted to have had
the member's question this morning because
it was a question submitted both in English
and in French and I was glad to see it. I was
practising my French on it. But I felt that
it should have the preamble which was, as
I say, politically aligned, taken out, and just
the question left.
NOVEMBER 22, 1968
75
Mr. Nixon: If I might comment on the
point of order-
Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, I thought some
French should come into it, so I would just
like to say merci beaucoup, M. l'Orateur.
Mr. Nixon: I was never under the impres-
sion that the rules governing questions pro-
hibited an attack on the government. In
many ways, that is the main function for
Opposition, and while I am not familiar with
the wording that you disapproved, surely the
fact that it contained an attack on the gov-
ernment is irrelevant to the question.
Mr. Speaker: It is not irrelevant because
the whole purpose of the question period, as
I understand it, is to ask questions of urgent
and public importance. That was the ques-
tion which followed the statement, which
was embodied as part of the question. If
any member wishes to ask a question, it cer-
tainly can be an attack on the government
but it must be a question and not an allega-
tion or a statement of fact, and our rules so
read.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: Let us get down to some
honest business.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Peter-
borough has a point.
Mr. Sargent: I am on my point with the
Minister; I was the motivator of this.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, but these are all ques-
tions which have arisen out of it, so the
member will please yield to the member for
Peterborough, and we will come back to him
so he may proceed with his question.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, on this point of
order, I do not want to prolong discussion
on this matter, but I think that one matter
has been overlooked and that is that these
questions are expected to be of urgent public
importance.
Hon. Mr. Randall: That is right.
Mr. Pitman: They are expected to be on
matters which are of importance at the time
of the question. I would disagree with the
leader of the Opposition that they are neces-
sarily a matter of clobbering the government
for some of its misdemeanors, although this
may very well come out of the answer. But
I think the main point is that it should be
relating to events that are taking place at
the time when the question is being asked.
This is what bothers me very greatly; it
seems to me that the one way a member can
relate his question to current events is by
beginning the question with "in view of"—
Mr. Speaker: There is no ruling that you
may not use "in view of".
Mr. Pitman: I am very pleased to hear
that, Mr. Speaker, because that was certainly
the impression that was left in the previous
session, that this was an inappropriate and
unacceptable way-
Mr. Speaker: Provided the preamble has
to do with the question, but if the preamble
"in view of" has to do with extraneous mat-
ters of an allegation or a statement of fact,
then it is not allowed by the rules. But if a
member must use "in view of" as the basis
for his question, there is no such ruling
against; it, and I have allowed "in view of"
questions just as I have allowed "why" ques-
tions, which I think are quite proper.
The hon. member for Grey-Bruce has now
returned to the floor.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister
can get up and completely evade the truth
and mislead the House and the press, then I
should not be here; no one should be here.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member is
either on a point of order or—
Mr. Sargent: This is very important. This
Minister has continually, along with the Prime
Minister-
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. member
making a point of order? If so, he will state it.
Mr. Sargent: I am suggesting this Minister
is misleading the House and I will show you
why regarding this loan of the ODC. Make
no bones about it because it is available
from the ODC people who have no other
source of financing, this is true. On top of
that, it is a forgiveness loan; it is a gift
to them from the government, the people of
Ontario. Why would anyone go to IDC or
to any other institution for a loan if he can
get free money from the government?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member
started out with a point of order or privilege
that the hon. Minister was misleading the
House. Now he is making a speech.
Mr. Sargent: He has misled the House. He
has not told the House or the newspapers that
he took the word of Caswell or Holiday Inn,
a multi-million dollar chain, Husky Oil—
76
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer): Mr. Speaker, I submit this is entirely
out of order. This is a debate, it is not a
question.
Mr. Sargent: The Minister would suggest
that?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Yes, I would—
Mr. Sargent: Because you boys are intelli-
gent, this guy-
Mr. Speaker: Order, order! The hon. Treas-
urer has the floor.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I submit to you,
sir, that it requires a ruling from you because
this is getting beyond the bounds of propriety,
common sense or anything else, this type of
harangue. As a matter of fact, while I am
on my feet, may I speak about the privilege
of every member of the House and that is,
that these allegations of untruths, part truths,
misleading information, must be substantiated
in a better form than they are being sub-
stantiated here this morning.
Mr. Sargent: I am trying to.
Mr. Speaker: T,he hon. member is rising on
a point of order; the hon. member is on his
feet on a point of order and the hon. mem-
ber for Grey-Bruce has the floor.
Mr. Sargent: The Minister then can justify
his position-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will con-
fine himself to his point of order.
Mr. Sargent: All right. My point of order
is this, that he has not told the House in
honest terms why these loans were granted
to Holiday Inn, Husky Oil, Caswell— multi-
million-dollar firms— when the terms of refer-
ence of the ODC are not to lend money-
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member has
now made his point. He will return to his
seat. If the hon. Minister wishes to reply to
it he has the opportunity. If not, the hon.
member for Humber has the floor on a point
of order.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, all I would
say is that there is a great deal of confusion
in the mind of the hon. member for Grey-
Bruce. He is confusing a loan in which the
ODC collects interest for the loan, in the
same way as a client would get a loan if he
went to any other institution. He is also con-
fusing the money given away on a forgiveness
basis to companies going into designated
areas.
Mr. Sargent: I am not talking—
Hon. Mr. Randall: Just wait a minute. The
value of the company's assets has nothing to
do with the loan being made, provided they
go into an area where we want them— into
a designated area. I do not care if it is the
Bank of England, if they go into a designated
area, they can get a forgiveness loan and
Caswell fell into that category. Because the
hon. member says he was a Conservative
from away back makes absolutely no differ-
ence to us. You can bring anybody in— I do
not care— their political faith makes no
difference to the board of ODC or to me,
and I do not see those loans until after they
come to Cabinet and that is where I defend
them, in Cabinet, if Cabinet wants to turn
them down; so if there is any confusion it
certainly is not on this side of the House.
Mr. Sargent: I received-
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
May I suggest in order that the valuable
time of some 100 members of this House be
not further taken up with this, that the hon.
Minister arrange an appointment with the
hon. member for Grey-Bruce and go over
these matters. And then, if they are not
understood, it could form the basis of a
further question in the House.
Mr. Sargent: Thanks.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Humber
has a point of order.
Mr. Ben: I will pass.
Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member for
Grey-Bruce a question?
Mr. Sargent: A question to the hon. Minis-
ter of Trade and Development. What will be
the cost of the Expo '70 exhibit in Japan?
How many trips are planned this year and
who will be going on these junkets from this
department?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will please
follow his wording. The wording is "How
many trips are planned this year and who will
be making the trips from this department?"
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to the hon. member's question, the total cost
of Expo '70 participation in Japan will be in
the order of $2.6 million.
Secondly, there will be two trips to Japan
this fiscal year, made by J. W. Ramsay, J. C.
Purvis, and F. Moritsugu, who are the three
men responsible for building and running the
NOVEMBER 22, 1968
77
Ontario pavilion for Expo '70— and as the hon.
member already knows, I was there this year
to participate in the ceremony of digging the
hole and getting the building under construc-
tion, so that we would finish three or four
months ahead of time and stop paying double
time and overtime to get the job finished.
Mr. Sargent: People cannot get houses in
this province and you are running across the
country-
Mr. Speaker: Order, the hon. member will
proceed with his next question.
Mr. Sargent: A question for the Minister of
Municipal Affairs. Will the Minister advise
what is to be done about apartment owners
who have raised their rents to cover the cost
of the shelter tax payment to apartment
tenants?
Secondly, does the government plan an
enquiry and investigation into this widespread
practice during the past few months in
Ontario?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, in reply
to the first part of the question, the member
is aware, I am sure, that there are no rent
controls presently in effect in the province of
Ontario.
The answer to the second part of the ques-
. . « »»
tion is no .
Mr. Sargent: A supplementary to that ques-
tion: Is the Minister aware that even before
this Act was put into effect rents were appar-
ently being raised— even before you made this
public?
Another question for the Minister. Will the
Minister advise when will—
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I might say that is
one of the most helpful statements we have
had in a long time from the hon. member.
Mr. Sargent: Well, I do not know. You see
what could happen if the Chair would let us
develop these things but he has the old
dagger all the time in here.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: You had better call
the Seargent-at-Arms.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sargent: A question regarding the
Beaver Valley area: When will the plans for
Beaver Valley be completed?
Secondly, how many such cases in Ontario
are presently delinquent?
Thirdly, when is the chaos in your depart-
ment going to be rectified?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): Is that in the question?
Mr. Sargent: That is in the question.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, my
reply to the first part of the hon. member's
question is that much work has been done
toward the completion of an official plan for
the Beaver Valley. While no deadline has
been set, the municipalities have been, and
are being urged to prepare a plan to guide
future development so that substandard con-
ditions and unduly high municipal expendi-
tures can be avoided.
In recognition of the urgency involved the
government undertook to finance, at no cost
to the municipalities involved, a planning
appraisal of the area. This appraisal was com-
pleted by a firm of planning consultants and
was submitted in its final form within the
past three weeks. Copies have been sent to
the municipalities concerned and a meeting
is being arranged in the near future to settle
the details of carrying out the planning pro-
grammes.
In regard to the second part of the ques-
tion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that a number
of communities in Ontario have come to ap-
preciate the need for effective planning pro-
grammes to establish the development policies
they need. However, I do not have informa-
tion which would indicate how many have
not yet succeeded in carrying out such pro-
grammes to completion. I would say this,
however, Mr. Speaker: Many of the com-
munities in this province are working sin-
cerely and diligently to discharge their
responsibilities in this regard and it seems
harsh to characterize their efforts as being
delinquent.
In reply to the third part of the question-
when is the chaos in this department going to
be rectified?— I suppose I could only say, Mr.
Speaker, that it ill behooves a member of
this House in my opinion to characterize the
work of a group of hard-working civil ser-
vants in my department as chaotic. I resent
that, I do not choose to answer.
Mr. Sargent: He does not choose to an-
swer. Maybe he will not answer a supple-
mentary question then? Is the Minister aware
that the county council of Grey county said
this is costing them several hundreds of thou-
sants of dollars for your delinquency? Is the
government prepared to give them a subsidy
to that effect? Talk about chaos!
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I
think I might just say that I am aware very
78
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
much of what is felt by the county council.
We have had innumerable meetings with offi-
cials in Grey. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that
I am very helpfully kept informed of the
thinking of the people of Grey county coun-
cil, of the members of the local municipal
councils, by the very capable, efficient,
understanding member for Grey South (Mr.
Winkler).
Mr. Nixon: Who is not here today.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Perhaps he is up
looking after the people of Grey South.
Mr. Sargent: He is in deep trouble, too.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member
for Grey-Bruce wish to place any more ques-
tions? The member for Dovercourt has a
question of the Minister of Education.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order, the hon. member for Grey-
Bruce asked three questions on Wednesday.
He has now chosen to put two of them. May
I ask if the third question is being with-
drawn or how long are we going to go on
with this little game? Is the question with-
drawn, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: The question is not with-
drawn.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: So we go on with
this little farce day after day-
Mr. Sargent: This man is being paid a
handsome salary to do his job and he, along
with the Attorney General yesterday, was
complaining about having to answer ques-
tions again. Who does he think he is—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. I think, sir, that it
would be very helpful for the orderly con-
duct of this House if you gave a ruling on
this matter of hon. members opposite get-
ting together a list of questions so that the
Ministers have to get their staff hurrying
about to get answers, and then some hon.
member deciding to put those questions when
he pleases, which may be three weeks from
now— three months from now— or never at all.
I think this is abusing the whole question
period.
Mr. Speaker: Of course, I would point out
to the hon. Minister and the members that
the shoe also fits another foot and that is,
if the hon. Minister is not present then the
hon. member who is asking the question is
not able to put it and sometimes, that goes
on for a considerable time.
So at the present time, I have no inten-
tion of changing the procedure until this
matter has been further discussed by my
committee.
An hon. member: Three cheers for the
Speaker.
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, I would make the suggestion
that both members are present, the mem-
ber asking and the Minister who has the
reply. The member opposite does not wish
to put the question. Would it not be ap-
propriate for the Minister, before the orders
of the day, to give the answer in any event?
The matter would be cleared up right then
and there. And there could be no complaint
because both people are here.
Mr. Speaker: I think that is an excellent
suggestion and I will be glad to have it con-
sidered when my committee— and I hope to
call them next week— are discussing this.
Then we will refer it to the party leaders
and we will hope to clear up some of this
confusion.
But my position, hon. members, is this:
that there is a very great divergence of
opinion among the 116 other members of
this House as to what is, first of all, a mat-
ter of urgent public importance before the
orders of the day; secondly, as between the
hon. members and Mr. Speaker as to how
they should be worded; and thirdly, as
between the hon. members of the Opposition
and members of the Treasury benches as to
the manner in which a question should be
answered.
These are matters which either have to be
decided and strict rules followed, or we must
carry on in perhaps not quite as riotous a
fashion as we have. But we must carry on
and give sufficient leeway both to hon. mem-
bers and to Ministers to make their points.
As I have said, we will try to discuss this
next week with my committee, if we can find
time to meet and there are improvements
which can be made. There is no question
about it.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. The bounds
within which you are prepared to consider
improvements in the context of your com-
mittee excludes the one area which members
of this party at least feel very strongly about:
that is, to completely chuck the question
NOVEMBER 22, 1968
79
period as it is presently constituted by way
of written submissions and written replies,
and substitute for it the rather more useful,
adult, and effective, question period which
is spontaneous both from the Opposition and
by way of ministerial reply. Then, the ques-
tion period will not be reduced to a ludi-
crous state day after day. We can have some
effective exchange of opinion in the House
and one would hope that that might be
incorporated in your terms of reference.
Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker
and his committee can take no action in that
regard until the rules of the House, which
now prescribe how questions are to be an-
swered, are changed. As I understand it
there has been, over a long period of time,
a great discussion and enquiry into the rules,
and as yet Mr. Speaker has had no return
from the various committees who have been
dealing with the matter. But it is a point
which I think should be and will be and is
being considered by that particular body.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce
remarked a moment ago that the Attorney
General yesterday complained about answer-
ing questions.
Mr. Sargent: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: He seems to be slightly
confused.
An hon. member: What else is new?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The only thing I com-
plained of was his failure to ask the questions
he submitted to you, Mr. Speaker.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The situation yester-
day, Mr. Speaker, was that of the five ques-
tions he submitted he asked four and I
simply urged him to ask the other one. I
was not complaining about answering it.
I never have complained. One of the ques-
tions, I did point out, had been asked twice
before, but I was not complaining about
answering. I was urging him to get his
questions before me so they could be an-
swered.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Education.
What is the percentage of the provincial
contribution of the capital cost of new con-
struction of schools, and what is the per-
centage of the provincial contribution of the
maintenance costs of schools?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to answer this, and also make one observa-
tion with respect to the point made by the
hon. member for Scarborough West when
he suggested the question period should con-
sist of questions without any forethought and
answers without any forethought. I always
feel very strongly that while Ministers here
are expected to give answers off the cuff
there is every—
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker. I cannot speak for the answers.
They may come without forethought but the
questions would be thoughtful.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Exactly. This is just the
point. The questions would all be arranged
in the minds of the hon. members opposite
and then you—
Mr. Lewis: And, if the Minister is master
of his department he could cope with it.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order, order!
Will the hon. Minister return to his seat
when the Speaker is on his feet?
Now perhaps the hon. Minister will confine
himself at the moment to answering the ques-
tion which was put to him, and thereafter if
he has a point of order I will be glad to give
him the floor.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Quite right, Mr. Speaker,
quite right.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question
asked, I quite agree with the speaker.
Mr. Sargent: Bit confused there—
Hon. Mr. Davis: No, just trying to save a
longer dissertation. This is a difficult ques-
tion to answer, I might point out, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Particu-
larly in the way it has been prepared.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, in that we were
somewhat involved in the preparation, this
would perhaps increase its complexity. I
quite agree.
But in the case of elementary and sec-
ondary non-vocational projects— and you have
to divide the non-vocational from the voca-
tional—the average provincial contribution
would be approximately 70 per cent of 80
per cent of the total, or on a provincial
average in the neighbourhood of 56 per cent.
The secondary vocational projects which are
80
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
available up until March 31, 1969, are being
supported at a 75 per cent rate.
There are some exceptions, to this, Mr.
Speaker, in that there are certain vocational
units being built in some sections of the
province— basically in northern Ontario where
they are serving neighbouring communities
—that are not part of the initial school dis-
trict where the contribution could be 100
per cent of those portions of the structure;
the balance would be at the 75 per cent rate.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to give a total
provincial average unless you would break
it down into these various areas.
Dealing with the second part of the ques-
tion, I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, just what
is meant by "provincial contribution of the
maintenance costs of the schools." If the
hon. member is referring to day-to-day
maintenance— painting and so on during the
summer months or as part of the operation-
then this is not calculated in any provincial
grant as it relates to capital purposes.
Mr. De Monte: Would the Minister accept
a supplementary question?
In connection with the maintenance costs
of schools, there are certain grants given to
the schools, and is part of these grants spent
on maintenance? By maintenance, I mean
capital maintenance.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if we mean
by maintenance the day-to-day caretaking
and so on of the schools, this is not calcu-
lated in here. We have special grants for
renovations of existing school structures but
I do not think we would consider this as
being maintenance.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The first order, resum-
ing the adjourned debate on the motion for
an address in reply to the speech of the
Honourable, the Lieutenant-Governor at the
opening of the session.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. J. Jessiman (Fort William): Mr.
Speaker, before I go into my final 40 pages
I would like to compliment the member for
Scarborough Centre (Mrs. M. Renwick) for
rising like a tigress defending her mate and
questioning the authenticity of the remarks
that I made in regard to a meeting. I would
like to read to you, Mr. Speaker, and those
present, from the Globe and Mail of Novem-
ber 5, datelined out of St. Thomas, and the
headline is, "Renwick Charges Unions Told
to Help MacDonald." I read:
All full-time representatives of two large
Ontario unions had been warned to help
Donald MacDonald retain the leadership
of the Ontario New Democratic Party or
lose their jobs, his opponent, James Ren-
wick charged here Monday night. Mr.
Renwick, president of the national NDP
and deputy leader of the Ontario party,
told an Elgin county NDP rally the orders
were relayed to district representatives of
the United Steelworkers by Lynn Williams
and Stu Cook, and to international rep-
resentatives of the United Packinghouse
Workers by Iona Samis and Jim Bury.
"This is a public political party, not a
private club to be manipulated by power
brokers," Mr. Renwick told the crowd of
50 as Mr. MacDonald waited his turn to
speak. The two men face a party conven-
tion at Kitchener November 15 to 17.
"But any staff representative of those two
unions who supports me or campaigns for
me does so at the risk of his job," charged
Mr. Renwick, who announced his candi-
dacy for the leadership on October 8.
Replied Mr. MacDonald, "I'm glad to
say that's a charge that usually comes from
the other parties, that the labour unions
manipulate our party. Mr. Renwick should
know better. The labour unions were sup-
posed to be against him when he ran for
national president. But he was elected. He
said the matter was one which should be
discussed in private by the party, not
washed in public like linen.
"Mr. Renwick is indulging in a bit of
crying because he is not getting their sup-
port. He is using a heavy, emotion-laden
form of arm-twisting, a lament for his own
loss of support."
"I will get considerable support because
of this arm-twisting," interjected Mr. Ren-
wick. "Donald has been on the phone ever
since I announced I'd run, phoning the
caucus members, phoning riding presidents,
seeking personal loyalty rather than loyalty
to the party."
"I sure have been on the phone," snapped
Mr. MacDonald. "What sort of a game do
you think we're playing? Tiddly-winks?"
Two questioners from the floor tried to
get Mr. Renwick to substantiate this charge.
He said he would not reveal his source,
which produced a few groans from the
audience.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): What
type of game was Camp playing?
NOVEMBER 22, 1968
81
Mr. Jessiman: I read this into the records,
Mr. Speaker, and I will now proceed. Going
back to the continuation of yesterday, and
referring to the emotionally disturbed chil-
dren who are now housed over at the psy-
chiatric hospital in Port Arthur.
Excursions are arranged for the children to
local stores, industries, the circus, banks, and
so on. Many of the benefits enjoyed by chil-
dren in the regular public schools are being
provided for the children in the school pro-
gramme at the Ontario Hospital in Port
Arthur.
In discussing the activities of The Depart-
ment of Education, I want to stress here the
programmes of the youth and recreation
branch, which also plays an important role in
programmes for northern Ontario. Working
with municipal councils, school boards, pri-
vate agencies and single interest groups, this
branch encourages local action to develop a
wide variety of opportunities for recreation
and informal education.
We can single out five areas of service
in which the northern Ontario youth and
recreation branch is active: First, it plans
consultative visits to communities by district
representatives and programme specialists;
second, the branch offers resource material on
the organization and programming of recrea-
tion and adult education activities; third, it
provides assistance in designing, organizing
and conducting programmes of training for
full-time, part-time and volunteer leaders of
recreation activities; fourth, the branch assists
in organizing programmes of training for
executive members of voluntary organizations;
and, as its fifth main service, the youth and
recreation branch in northern Ontario author-
izes grants to municipal councils and to school
boards in unorganized territories for munici-
pal expenditures on recreation. In the coming
year, programmes will be extended to isolated
communities in northwestern Ontario for
which transportation will be provided by
Department of Lands and Forests aircraft.
The Department of Education continues to
give active leadership in training for business
and industry and manpower retraining. More
than 100 courses are provided to help people
meet the challenge of change by upgrading
their work skills. One interesting example of
such opportunities are the courses that are
offered on a number of Indian reserves by
the Kenora centre.
There has been much favourable comment
regarding the beneficial side effects experi-
enced on the reserves as a result of the
Ontario manpower retraining programme.
General health and welfare have improved,
and, probably most important, adults now
appreciate the value of the education acquired
by the younger generation.
An experimental project has been initiated
recently for the hard-core unemployed in
Timmins to determine the most effective
methods for motivating and training people
with such a background.
Steps are now being taken to provide addi-
tional services to adults in the more remote
areas of the province. Ontario expects to
commence full-time courses in English as a
second language at Fort Albany and Kasech-
ewan where the population is predominantly
Cree. Ontario plans to offer part-time courses
at approximately five other major reserves by-
utilizing the potential of daytime teachers in
a night school programme. These part-time
courses will be concerned primarily with Eng-
lish as a second language and basic training
for academic upgrading at the levels of grades
one to six. At Quetico and Elliot Lake, English
as a second language is being offered on a
total immersion basis. This approach is being
used for a number of persons who have
arrived recently from Czechoslovakia.
A course for operators of heavy duty equip-
ment is being offered at the Quetico training
centre. The graduates of the course are find-
ing ready employment in northwestern
Ontario.
If I have dwelt here on education in north-
ern Ontario, it is because it is an area of
special concern to me and those I represent;
but the expansion of educational effort can
be seen throughout the province. It is in
keeping with the needs and aspirations of our
people and of Canada as a whole, the needs
and aspirations which have made education,
in the eyes of the economic council of Canada,
for example, the top priority of the nation.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that these
accomplishments have been made by mem-
bers of a government and a party who do not
think action can be initiated by firing off a
press release or making incorrect or emo-
tional statements and then catch the next
motor boat to go fishing.
These, then, Mr. Speaker, are educational
programmes of substance, pushing back both
the frontiers of knowledge and the frontiers
of our northern environment and bringing to
the north country facilities and learning com-
parable to those offered anywhere in Canada
or Ontario.
On the equalization of industrial oppor-
tunity—for many years, the second greatest
challenge facing the north is industrial devel-
opment. To expand our population and to
82
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
interest people in moving to the north, we
must provide jobs. It is in this area that the
new equalization of industrial opportunity
programme announced by the Prime Minister
(Mr. Roberts), in September of 1967, and I
might add, derided by the Opposition, has
been welcomed by the north. As of Novem-
ber 19, this year, the total amDunt of loans
authorized under EIO is $1,666,613. This has
meant, at commencement, almost 400 jobs,
sir, and in five years it will mean close to
600 jobs. It has almost meant an increase
in plant area of 178,000 square feet.
EIO loans under study at the present time
for the north amount to some $2,000,290. In
addition to these, interest-free forgiveable
loans, term loans have been authorized for an
amount of $810,000.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): How much
did they make available to get Norply going?
Mr. Jessiman: During October 1967 and
November 19 of this year, the Ontario Devel-
opment Corporation consultants provided on-
the-spot advisory service to 211 companies
and individuals in the north, including Norply
of Nipigon, I might add.
The EIO programme has reached into
communities all across northern Ontario-
places such as Port Arthur, Hearst, Glenorchy,
Red Lake, Fort William, Falconbridge and
Kenora.
Mr. Speaker, the question has often been
asked: What has mining done for northwest-
ern Ontario?
First of all, to start off on a general basis,
the mining industry now produces better than
$100 million worth of mineral annually from
operations in the northwestern Ontario region
and the output has been growing quite con-
sistently over the last several years! From the
way things look at the present time, I think
we can look forward to greater and more
spectacular advances in the years ahead.
With the short time allocated to me, I
would just like to list some of the highlights
in northwestern Ontario mining in recent
years.
One— the huge Griffith mine was officially
opened at Bruce Lake in June of this year.
This $62-milIion project is particularly im-
portant to northern Ontario.
Operating 365 days a year on an around-
the-clock basis, the Griffith mine is providing
new employment opportunities for over 350
men and will have an annual payroll of more
than $2 million in that locality. With ore
reserves estimated to be sufficient for 30 to
50 years of production, the property is also
creating a continuously increasing need for
local services, supplies and facilities.
The official opening ceremony, which inci-
dentally I had the pleasure of attending with
the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines
(Mr. A. F. Lawrence), also the member for
the Kenora area (Mr. Bernier) and other offi-
cials, represented the culmination of two full
years of concerted effort on the part of many
companies and individuals. Up to 850 men
were employed during the peak of this pro-
gramme including 150 Griffith pre-production
personnel. The contractor established a 100-
man engineering force, producing 1,400 draw-
ings and specifications, and purchased $10
million worth of equipment for the plant. The
project also involved the construction by the
CNR of a spur line from Red Lake Junction,
the erection by the Ontario Hydro-Electric
Power Commission of a new electric power
generating station at Ear Falls and 115,000-
volt transmission line to the property, laying
of a natural gas pipeline from Vermilion Bay
on the Trans Canada Highway, building of
a $5-million ore dock at Fort William, and
the provision by the Ontario Housing Cor-
poration of 100 housing units at Ear Falls.
I am delighted to say that this mine means
new life for our great northwest and a con-
siderable boost to Ontario's whole economy.
I am certain that our hopes for a long and
prosperous life for this new mining venture
will be fulfilled.
Incidentally, I was happy to learn that right
from the beginning every possible step has
been taken to see that our waters will not be
polluted by the operations of the Griffith
mine. It is also good to know that a com-
plete sewage disposal plant is being installed
at Red Lake to keep this beautiful body of
water safe for recreation and pure for
drinking.
As members can well imagine, pollution has
always been a matter of major concern to
the mining industry, although perhaps the
industry has not always been given credit for
recognizing its responsibility in this respect.
I think that I would be one of the first to
agree that this far too prevalent attitude of
the public is unfair and unwarranted in most
cases. I know, and I wish that other members
of the public-at-large realized, that many mil-
lions of dollars have been spent by the mining
industry in an effort to keep air and water
as pure as is possible in an industrial environ-
ment.
Two— Steep Rock iron mines. Although
Steep Rock has been through rough times
NOVEMBER 22, 1968
83
finding markets for its ore, it is heartening
to note that the company is now operating
on two long-term contracts. One, with Algoma
Steel for 1.1 million tons of pellets a year for
22 years and the other contract with Detroit
Steel Corporation for 250,000 tons of pellets
a year for ten years.
Three— the Caland Ore Company. This
company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Inland Steel Company, continues to mine
and ship ore from the open pits. The com-
pany's pelletizing plant produces more than
3,000 tons of pellets daily. Approximately 400
employees are on the payroll.
Four— the Algoma Steel Corporation. It
goes without saying that this company con-
sumes vast quantities of iron ore and other
raw materials in its production of steel. With
a huge appetite for more than three million
tons of iron ore annually, new sources of
supply are continually being developed.
The Michipicoten iron range near Wawa,
Ontario, has long been a major supplier of
iron ore for Algoma's b'ast furnaces and it is
here that the company recently opened
another open pit to mine siderite ore.
T,he Ruth and Lucy mine, with a pro-
jected minimum production of 50,000 tons of
ore per month, came into production after
extensive diamond drilling by the Algoma
ore division's exploration department during
1967.
Five— the new Fort William ore dock. This
important facility was officially opened in
September of this year.
Finally, I would like to comment briefly
on the Ontario government's contribution in
this field. There is no doubt about the fact
that the current administration has done a
tremendous amount to help the great north-
west move forward.
It is not necessary to go very far afield to
pick up evidence of this. Let us look at
access roads, for example. The road from
Pickle Crow mine to Lingman Lake, 265
miles to the northwest, was started as one
project of the federal-provincial roads to
resources programme. Since that agreement
has, unfortunately, expired the work will be
continued as part of Ontario's own northern
resource roads programme which is financed
out of The Department of Mines budget.
Still closer to home and under the same pro-
gramme the road from Balmertown is being
driven northward to connect with the Pickle
Crow road. When the job is completed it will
be possible to travel the circular route from
Highway 17 through Red Lake to Pickle
Crow and back to Highway 17 at Ignace via
Highway 599. I mention only these roads
although in the past few years a great many
others have been constructed to open large
areas in this part of the province for full
development of their natural resources. Since
the inception of the programme in 1951,
there has been more than ample proof that
the relatively very modest investment has
paid off handsomely in the development of our
natural resources.
Let us now take a look at the geological
branch of The Department of Mines. This is
certainly the fastest growing branch of the
department, and about half the total depart-
mental budget is devoted to its work. That,
I think is exactly as it should be because,
without the information that our highly quali-
fied geologists present to the public in the
form of reports and maps, it is almost certain
that active prospecting activity would become
almost entirely the province of major com-
panies, which alone could afford the necessary
geological reconnaissance work required as a
preliminary to intensive prospecting activity.
This year The Ontario Department of Mines
carried out 30 geological projects throughout
Ontario and, of that number, 13 yere in the
part of the province west of Wawa. Field
parties were at work in the Favourable Lake
area, in the North Shoal Lake area, in Mac-
nicol, Tustin, Bridges and Docker townships,
in the Sturgeon Lake area, the Rainy Lake
area, Finlayson Lake area, Crooks town-
ship and Red Lake, the Beardmore area and
the Manitouwadge area.
Operation Kapuskasing was conducted two
years ago as a pilot project in which the
use of helicopters made it possible to cover
28,000 square miles in a single season. It
was such an unqualified success that the
same technique was used again last year in
operation Lingman Lake in the extreme
northwest part of the province to survey an
additional 23,000 square miles. This year a
similar airlift survey was mounted in opera-
tion Pukaskwa at the eastern end of Lake
Superior.
During September of this year, more than
70 members of this Legislature were privi-
leged to participate in a tour of northwestern
Ontario hosted by The Department of Lands
and Forests and its Minister (Mr. Brunelle).
The tour was headed up by our Prime
Minister.
The tour provided all of us and particularly
the more recently elected members of the
Legislature, with a first-hand opportunity to
observe the extent of development in this part
of the province and to acquaint themselves
84
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
with many of the challenges facing residents
in the northern latitudes.
During the tour we travelled more than
2,000 miles from the capital of this province
to its westernmost edge and back, visiting
many of the area's villages, towns and in-
dustries. As the member for Fort William, I
am very pleased to record that the hospitality
accorded tour members was entirely expected
and traditional to the area.
I had a few words here to add, but unfor-
tunately the member who was present on the
tour is not present in the House and I will
not direct at him in his absence my words
on his conduct in Fort William.
I might mention, Mr. Speaker, that it was
also during this members' tour that the
Prime Minister opened the Minaki air strip,
which is the first of the "highways in the
sky" programme. For the construction of the
Minaki airport the provincial government
contributed $30,000. This new programme is
intended to assist in the construction of small
airports throughout northern Ontario, and
eventually, the provincial government hopes
to have air strips constructed in the north to
form an air corridor for tourist and commer-
cial aircraft. It is my understanding that new
air strips under the programme are planned
and already under construction at Kirkland
Lake, Nestor Falls, Sioux Narrows, Bugle
Lake, Cochrane, Big Trout Lake, Sandy Lake
and Wawa.
Mr. Speaker, last July the OHC board of
directors toured to Ear Falls where 100 rental
housing units are being built under the Hous-
ing for Industry Programme to assist in the
development of a new mine in the Red Lake
area. This was followed by a board of
directors' meeting at the Lakehead— the first
such meeting to be held outside Toronto—
and its purpose was to acquaint board mem-
bers with the special programmes of the
northern communities.
During the year, two programmes designed
to acquaint northern residents with the cor-
poration and to provide corporation officials
with a first hand view of the needs of On-
tario's northern communities, were organized.
The first was a unique housing workshop on
wheels which covered 1,400 miles with meet-
ings in Moosonee, Cochrane, Timmins and
Englehart, with a side trip to Kirkland Lake.
On October 10, the workshop was held in
Fort William which was attended by mem-
bers of council, planning boards, community
organizations and municipal officials from
throughout the northwestern Ontario eco-
nomic region.
A programme aimed at providing more
than $4.6 million worth of student accom-
modation in post-secondary institutions in
northern Ontario is underway by OSHC. At
Lakehead University in Port Arthur 480
single student units are under construction.
The first three houses accommodating 144
students, together with a social centre, will
be ready next month, and another 96 will
be ready early in the New Year with the
whole project scheduled for occupancy before
next September.
On August 7, a contract was awarded for
250 single units at Laurentian University
which are scheduled to be ready in August,
1969.
A proposal call will be issued shortly for
a 200-single-student bed project at the
Northern College of Applied Arts and Tech-
nology in Kirkland Lake. Preliminary dis-
cussions have been held with Confederation
College of Applied Arts and Technology in
Fort William which may be interested in
having OSHC build a 150-student bed
project.
During the past year OHC has brought on
to the market two offerings of Home Owner-
ship Made Easy lands in Sudbury and Teck
township and nearly all of these have been
marketed. The corporation has purchased
additional land in Sudbury which is now in
the planning stage.
A contract has been signed for the servic-
ing of 94 building lots in Espanola which
will be available for prospective home owners
next spring. In Longlac a servicing contract
has been signed for the development sites
for 12 town houses for low income families
and the servicing of nine lots for prospective
home builders. The corporation holds addi-
tional land in this municipality which will
be developed when approvals are received.
As well, OHC has holdings in Timmins and
New Liskeard, and is assembling land in
Sturgeon Falls, which will be offered next
year.
OHC's housing development programme
was active in 26 northern municipalities dur-
ing 1968. This activity resulted in the com-
pletion and occupancy of 176 family units
in five communities, and the completion and
occupancy of 100 senior citizen units in five
communities.
Another 72 senior citizen units are under
construction in five communities and 197
family housing units are under construction
in six communities.
A total of 226 senior citizen units in nine
communities and 528 family units in 16 com-
NOVEMBER 22, 1968
85
munities are in various stages of development
up to the contract-signing stage.
OHC's northern Ontario rental housing
programme for families and senior citizens
as at October 31, 1968, represents a con-
struction cost of about $35,745 million.
OHC's planning and research section is
carrying out surveys in 15 northern munici-
palities, some of which are being surveyed
for the second and third time.
Mr. Speaker, when one speaks about agri-
culture generally most people in Ontario
would think that we confine our remarks to
areas in eastern Ontario and southwestern
Ontario primarily. However, I think it
should lie pointed out that there is very wide
agricultural activity taking place in northern
Ontario.
A full scale socio-economic survey of
northwestern Ontario, which is now under
way, was first proposed by the Ontario
ARDA directorate, and was approved by
ARDA with the two levels of government
sharing the cost equally. One important
aspect of this is an extensive multi-purpose
study of the entire economic base for north-
western Ontario. This is being done by the
rural development branch of the Ontario
Treasury. A second study undertaken by
The Department of Lands and Forests is
designed to develop ways and means of im-
proving living standards of Indian people.
We have great hopes for this overall pro-
gramme once the initial surveys have been
completed and the northwestern Ontario
regional development council is provided
with this information.
Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Department of
Agriculture and Food has also a number of
assistance programmes for livestock produc-
ers designed to improve the herds through
transportation assistance, beef, sheep and
swine sire programme policies, artificial in-
semination, and so on.
The department was primarily responsible
for the organizations of the five northern
Ontario feeder cattle sales in Little Current,
Thessalon, South River, New Liskeard and
Rainy River. These sales handle in the
neighbourhood of 10,000 cattle each year.
Thirteen areas in northern Ontario now
have veterinary service as a result of pro-
vincial subsidies to the tune of $4,000 per
year veterinarian plus five cents per mile.
Veterinarian services labs exist in Kapus-
kasing, Hearst and Cochrane.
Northern Ontario milk producers were the
first to benefit from pooling when the On-
tario government created the Ontario Milk
Marketing Board in 1965. There are three
such pools in the north.
Crop insurance is another area of positive
government action and has been provided
for a number of crops in northern Ontario.
Since 1965, adverse weather assistance has
been provided to northern Ontario farmers
to the extent of more than $4 million.
We maintain the New Liskeard demon-
stration farm and college of agricultural
technology to train young farmers and to
develop new varieties and new techniques
for the north. The extension department has
the highest ratio of professional staff to the
number of commercial farmers in all of
Ontario. There are 14 extension workers in
the north, six of them bilingual.
Each year a special fund of $250,000 is
designated for assistance in the purchase of
such items as fertilizer equipment, weed
sprayers, livestock, and so on, and adminis-
tered by the regional agricultural representa-
tive upon the advice of local farmers'
committees.
In 1967-1968 $135,000 worth of capital
grants were made to northern Ontario farm-
ers. To date nearly $1.5 million in grants
have been paid to northern Ontario com-
munities under The Communities Centres
Act.
More than 200 young farmers have been
established under the junior farmer loan with
loans totalling $2.75 million in northern
Ontario.
Community pastures have been established
at Thunder Bay, Timiskaming and on Mani-
toulin Island.
A beef ranching programme of 5,000 acres
is now in operation in the Cochrane area.
More than $44,000 was granted to the
Thunder Bay co-operative livestock abattoir
and this plant is now provided with full-time
meat inspection.
Hundreds of northern Ontario Indians have
been trained in forestry or transported to
southern Ontario for seasonal labour as a
part of the farm labour programme of The
Department of Agriculture and Food.
These, Mr. Speaker, are again just part of
one Ontario government department's activi-
ties in the north. These are just a few poli-
cies I mention to illustrate this government's
awareness of a need to assist the north.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I realize I have spent
some time in outlining Ontario government
programmes for northern Ontario, but I am
not nearly finished and I make no apology.
86
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
If, in the last session of this Legislature, we
were treated to four hours and ten hours of
listening to the frivolous remarks by the
member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) and
the oratory of the member for Sudbury (Mr.
Sopha), and I do not mean to embarrass the
member for Sudbury by linking his name
with the other— heaven forbid— I think the
government record in this session deserves a
good hearing. One department — that of
Lands and Forests — deserves special men-
tion. I would just like to go over some of
the highlights of this department and its
work in northern Ontario. I think, Mr.
Speaker, that we should be proud of our
provincial parks system that now includes 96
parks which have an area of more than eight
million acres. In 1967, I am told, we had an
increase of more than four per cent of park
visitors and it has now reached the all-time
high of 10,192,553.
To cope with this increasing demand of
recreation, Ontario during the 1967-1968
fiscal year has reserved a further 531 acres of
land and lakes for future development.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member
one question.
Mr. Jessiman: Also public demand for in-
creased recreation areas has resulted in—
Mr. Nixon: Perhaps he did not hear me,
I wonder if the hon. member would permit
a question?
Mr. Jessiman: —of a master plan for Algon-
quin Park and I understand similar master
plans are being developed for other parks.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order.
Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. leader of the
Opposition please state his point of order?
Mr. Nixon: The member just speaking
indicated the figures for park attendance end-
ing in the fall of 1968.
Mr. Jessiman: 1967.
Mr. Nixon: Ah, that is why I asked him
to repeat it and he would not pay any atten-
tion to me. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I
asked the specific information from the Min-
ister yesterday and he said it was not com-
piled.
Mr. Jessiman: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the
leader of the Liberal Party should know that
it could not possibly be compiled yet.
Also, public demand for increased recrea-
tional areas has resulted in the recent an-
nouncement of a master plan for Algonquin
Park and I understand similar master plans
are being developed for other parks.
In the area of recreational planning, the
department has initiated a number of long-
range plans and research plans, and work in
fact has been started on an outdoor recrea-
tional plan for Ontario.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, public
pressures for increased recreation on the
parks branch is also evident on the fish and
wildlife branch which must meet public de-
mand for more hunting and fishing areas.
I might mention, Mr. Speaker, that possibly
if the leader of the Liberal Party went on a
complete tour and possibly did a gate check
of each he might have the—
Mr. Nixon: I visited ten parks including
one right on the member's back doorstep and
he had never visited it.
Mr. Jessiman: How does the member
know? He did not follow me. He should not
speak unless he knows.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): I notice the mem-
ber does not deny the statement.
Mr. Jessiman: Game management plays an
important role in providing additional and
productive hunting areas and with most of
the land privately owned, it has become
necessary to acquire suitable areas of land
for this purpose. Another method adopted
by Ontario is through a land-owner assistance
programme to improve relations between
hunters and land owners and to restore hunt-
ing on private lands. The programme will
be well underway this year and includes
assistance to improve land for wildlife and
increased protection by conservation officers
where land is open for hunting.
The government is also concerned with
deer range improvement and studies have
indicated that deer populations can be in-
creased where there is adequate shelter pro-
vided and suitable browse available.
The ever-increasing demand made by the
public on the fisheries resources of the prov-
ince makes the need for sound fisheries man-
agement even more necessary. Under this
programme, Ontario's lakes are being inven-
toried as a first step. More than 3,000 lakes
have been surveyed to date with the pro-
gramme providing direction for an accelerated
programme of management.
NOVEMBER 22, 1968
87
These are just a few of the many pro-
erammes currently underway within The De-
partment of Lands and Forests— a department
so vital to the development of northern
Ontario. I could, of course, go on and on and
spell out in detail the northern activities of
the fisheries research branch, the timber
branch, which incidentally only last week
marked the billionth tree produced by the
department, and the forest protection branch
which performed the singularly excellent task
of the successful spraying of the spruce bud
worm over some 270,000 acres in the She-
bandowan Lake district.
I might mention at this point, Mr. Speaker,
that this is rather an important part of the
function of Lands and Forests. There was a
local area of infestation that, thank goodness,
was controlled, in the south and west of Fort
William. It was with special concern and
delight that the Prime Minister of this prov-
ince came to the Lakehead and flew over the
area and we went out and examined it at
ground level. Since then, I personally hive
been back with the foresters.
I am no biologist but certainly I used their
knowledge and went back with them and the
infestation has been controlled. We do not
have to go back many years to where we had
a tremendous outbreak of spruce bud worm
on the northwest shore of Lake Superior and
there were millions of acres of devastation
caused by the worms. So this is of very spe-
cial significance.
Mr. Speaker, in 1956, the Ontario Progres-
sive Conservative government set up the On-
tario Water Resources Commission. Since its
inception, this commission has approved proj-
ects in Ontario totalling $1,600 million.
Today, in order to execute its responsibilities,
the commission has developed regional offices.
One has already opened in Kingston to serve
eastern Ontario. Another has been opened
in London to serve southwestern Ontario and
negotiations now are currently underway for
the opening of a third regional office at Fort
William to serve the Lakehead and northwest-
ern Ontario.
In the last few years, we have heard a
steady scream of criticism from the Opposi-
tion benches about water pollution, and in
order to inform them as far as northern
Ontario is concerned, I really should put on
the record in detail the activities of this com-
mission and its work in our part of the prov-
ince. However, while they deserve to have
these facts given to them, I will just briefly
list the areas where OWRC projects are cur-
rently under development in northern Ontario:
Sioux Lookout, Balfour township, Bruce
Mines, Chapleau, Beardmore, Smooth Rock
Falls, Himsworth township, Black River,
Matheson, Hearst, Nakina, Rayside township,
Schreiber, Blezard township, Latchford, Long-
lac, Geraldton, Shackleton and Machin, Emo
township, Ignace, Ear Falls, Red Lake, Lake
Timiskaming.
Also, the OWRC is currently involved in
municipal water and sewage facilities in Port
Arthur, Fort William, Red Lake, Kenora, Ear
Falls and Fort Frances, and negotiations are
underway on Terrace Bay, Marathon and She-
bandowan Lake.
This gives hon. members some idea of the
government's progress in the field of sewag?
treatment and waterworks in northern Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, as the Progressive Conserva-
tive member for Fort William, when I speak
of the great city of Fort William, synony-
mously I must include the beautiful city of
Port Arthur— my apologies, the member has
vacated— and the immediately adjoining mu-
nicipalities of Shuniah and Neebing. The
united Fort William and her adjoining mu-
nicipalities and districts have a population of
over 110,000 people. The Canadian Lake-
head, as it is always referred to, although not
a legal designation, has grown in use over the
years as a description of these two historic
ports, situated at the western end of the
greatest inland waterways in the world— the
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway— and are
directly connected to the Atlantic Ocean. A
mid-continent seaport, Mr. Speaker, the Lake-
head has the honour of being the highest
seaport in the world at an elevation of over
600 feet above sea level.
At its historic beginning in 1678 as a trans-
shipping point, it was known as Fort Kamin-
stfquiwa. I might explain it, Mr. Speaker,
Kaminstiquiwa is an Ojibway word meaning
river of many miles. It was known as Fort
Kaminstiquiwa and built to protect the trans-
shipment eastward of valuable furs and the
interchange of goods going westward out of
eastern Canada. Since that time this great
inland port has grown to become the third
largest seaport in Canada with annual ship-
ments of almost 20 million tons. The concen-
tration of 25 grain elevators with capacity to
store over 110 million bushels, which is one
sixth of the total crop capacity of the prairie
provinces of Canada, makes the Canadian
Lakehead not only the third largest seaport
in Canada, but the granary of the world.
Grain is not the only commodity creating
this robust economy in the Lakehead, Mr.
Speaker.
88
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: They have a lot of trouble keep-
ing the grain moving down there.
Mr. Jessiman: Yes, the federal government
sure has trouble selling it, does it not? We
did fine when we were in there.
It is the pivot point and service centre for
a vast untapped natural resource empire
stretching north to Hudson Bay. The Lake-
head is the funnel, directing materials to the
hungry industrial consumers of the continent
and foreign lands. Fort William, situated
exactly halfway across the great domain, is
closer to Chicago than it is to the Queen city
of Toronto, and the newsprint manufactured
from one of our local mills supplies all the
requirements of one of the largest papers of
Chicago.
Mr. Speaker, again referring to the cities of
Fort William and Port Arthur that have
gradually grown to produce one solid busi-
ness and social unit, it is difficult to speak or
refer to one without the other. Side by side,
as husband and wife, these two great cities
are almost identical in population with close
to 50,000 each. When the recommendations
of the Hardy report on the study of regional
government are implemented, we soon will be
united, I hope, in a beautiful marriage be-
cause of the great distances to other centres.
From the Manitoba border, just west of
Kenora, to Queen's Park is a distance of 1,200
miles. Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that a
feeling of loneliness is often mistaken for a
feeling of neglect? In distance it is almost
twice as far to travel to Toronto as it is to
travel to Winnipeg from my home town. At
this time I would compliment Air Canada on
its recent inauguration of jet service between
the Queen City and the Canadian Lakehead
effective November 1. We are now just over
one hour of air travel from the Canadian
Lakehead to Toronto.
The Lakehead airport, although situated in
Fort William, services the whole area of
Thunder Bay with several flights daily both
east and west. Internationally we are also
connected by many airlines to the United
States, and like Toronto we have outgrown
our present facilities and larger accommoda-
tions are planned in the not-too-distant future
to service this great area.
In sports and recreation, Mr. Speaker, we
take no back seat to any part of the province
of Ontario. It is only normal to associate the
Lakehead with hockey because of our long
winter season and outdoor rinks. We are
proud of our record of achievement in this
field of recreation. With the expanded NHL,
widi many new teams, it is almost impossible
to name one that has not a player on it from
our Canadian Lakehead and area. In the past
five years, our little league teams from the
Lakehead have won three of five Canadian
championships— a record unsurpassed in this
great province. In the field of sports, Mr.
Speaker, we are located in the heart of the
northwestern chain of mountains, which are
actually a continuation of the Laurentian
escarpment. Within five miles of our cities,
we have four fine ski resort areas with vertical
drops as great as between 800 and 900 feet,
comparable with any skiing facilities in the
Dominion of Canada— certainly the finest in
the province of Ontario. The ski slopes are
serviced with both T-bar and chair-lift equip-
ment, and rapidly the Canadian Lakehead is
becoming the ski capital of Ontario. We have
been well represented on the Canadian ski
teams that have participated in world amateur
skiing, and in the not-too-distant future, I am
sure, sir, that we will be producing world
champions in the province of Ontario, and
particularly at the Canadian Lakehead.
As a past president of the Fort William
Chamber of Commerce, I state in the past
Centennial year, Mr. Speaker, it was our
privilege in Fort William for our male choir
to become not only the Centennial choir
champions for the province of Ontario, but
also to represent Ontario in the great Cen-
tennial sing in Nova Scotia, and win the
Canadian award for male choirs for the whole
Dominion of Canada. Our male choir then,
sir, represented Ontario in conducting a tour
of Europe, and the same choir, Mr. Speaker,
attended a function for the Premier and gave
a resounding rendition of "Well, Hello
Johnny". Also during our Centennial year,
the Fort William city band won the Canadian
championship for its class of band for the
Dominion of Canada and brought great
acclaim to our city. Not to be outdone, the
Fort William men's pipe band participated in
the Canadian championships and represented
our province in Scotland and in Europe and
brought great acclaim by performing for Her
Majesty the Queen on this trip.
Mr. Speaker, last July, the hon. Minister
of Tourism and Information (Mr. Auld) un-
veiled in Kenora one of the most revealing
and action resulting tourist information
studies. This report has received acclaim from
tourist associations and the general public as
a whole, as a report on which to build an
industry that will triple the revenue in the
areas examined. But, Mr. Speaker, conducting
a study is one thing. What we need is imme-
diate action to bolster our tourist business if
NOVEMBER 22, 1968
89
we are to get our rightful share, and I
would suggest to the Ministers of Tourism
and Information, Lands and Forests, Trade
and Development, that they combine their
efforts on behalf of the whole nordiern part
of the province and as a starter use one office
in the northern states to invite tourists to
visit us. This is a dual use of existing offices
in the United States at this present time. We
should stock Lake Superior with Cohoe
salmon, so that the "Cohoe fever" would
extend into Ontario instead of stopping at
the south side of our Great Lakes. I have
witnessed what has happened since Wisconsin,
Michigan, and Minnesota have combined and
planted the Cohoe. Before it is too late, let
us spend a million to make ten million in
this area. Let us recognize that tourism is our
third largest industry and really put an effort
on; let us extend the tourist season to 12
months instead of two or three. If we are
serious about giving the north a real shot in
the arm, then let us take advantage of what
we have most of in the north, beautiful wilder-
ness, and let us develop it to its fullest.
Mr. Speaker, it will not be long before we
have regional government in the Lakehead.
But, if we are to recognize the importance of
adopting the concept of regional government
in the same way that we have received and
adopted the new boundaries in education,
then I would suggest that we also recognize
the necessity for allowing the responsibilities
of area administration of all departments
of government to be placed in the area con-
cerned. Decisions for the north are then
made in the north— by true northerners who
understand the problems as they exist in the
north. What we need is a type of satellite
Queen's Park located in the north. Let us
also consider transferring, if not all, then at
least more of The Department of Lands and
Forests to northwestern Ontario in the area
where the crop is grown and harvested. And
Mr. Speaker, let us also recognize the nickel
capital of the world, Sudbury, and make it
the area from where most of The Depart-
ment of Mines should be operating.
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week,
we all listened with a great deal of interest
to die Lieutenant-Governor's speech, and
of particular importance for those of us from
northern Ontario was the announcement of
a plan to co-ordinate all northern transporta-
tion policies. My understanding is that this
new body will provide money to dispense
grants for building roads and landing fields,
and will generally be able to grant up to
$15,000 a mile to companies who want to
build roads to such resources as mines and
forests.
Also, I noted with interest the promise of
a revision in The Mining Act to overhaul our
laws affecting safety requirements in the
mining industry, and also a programme to
provide additional recreation areas and more
provincial parks, particularly, I hope, in
northern Ontario. On the whole, the Throne
Speech was realistic, practicable and sen-
sible. Generally, it has received applause
throughout Ontario. We realize that socialists
will be unhappy because the government has
decided not to go on and adopt any of the
NDP's large spending programmes.
Mr. Speaker, in connection with the gov-
ernment's northern Ontario policies, I would
just like to quote briefly from an editorial
which appeared recently in the Dryden
Observer.
No matter where one lives in Ontario,
the tendency is to fear that the rest of the
province may be enjoying benefits out
of proportion to those of one's own area.
There is little evidence, however, to sug-
gest that any section of the province is
being too seriously short-changed.
The Robarts government has shown
itself sensitive to requests for recognition
of area problems. Despite what political
opponents may say, and it is their privilege
to say what they please, Mr. Robarts
seems determined to lead Ontario to suc-
cessful development in every field of en-
deavour.
Election-time criticisms of the govern-
ment's attitude to northern and northwest-
ern Ontario have been found, with some
exceptions, groundless. On a per-capita
basis at least, these parts of the province
are getting their share.
Mr. Speaker, I have attempted here today
to place on the record just some of the
Ontario government's policies that have been
responsible for opening up one of the last
frontiers in North America. I think that the
people in northern Ontario should have a
ready reference of what the government is
doing in such important areas as education,
municipal reorganization, agriculture, water
resources and so on.
There are those critics, and we hope there
always will be, who argue that the govern-
ment does not do enough, fast enough. I
count myself among them. It is from con-
stant pressure, constructive criticism and the
continuous strivings for new programmes
90 ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that we in northern Ontario can ensure that Mr. Nixon moves the adjournment of the
we receive our fair share of government debate.
assistance and spending. But I would also Motion agreed to.
say that there are different types or critics—
those who are responsible and constructive, Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and those who go off in all directions, promis- and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, on
ing everything, making wild and unsubstan- Monday we will continue with the Throne
tiated charges and whose only goal is debate.
destruction. They have promises for every- Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjourn-
thing and policies for nothing, and that in ment of the House.
my view is why they will continue to remain v . ,
on the Opposition benches in the Legislature Motlon a8reed to.
of Ontario. The House adjourned at 12.35 o'clock, p.m.
No. 5
ONTARIO
legislature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, November 25, 1968
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, November 25, 1968
Report of select committee re standing committees, Mr. Olde 93
Expropriation Act, 1968-1969, bill intituled, Mr. Wishart, first reading 94
Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. Deans, first reading 96
Appointment of a commissioner to investigate administrative decisions and acts of offi-
cials of the government of Ontario and its agencies and to define the commis-
sioner's powers and duties, bill to provide for, Mr. Singer, first reading 96
Medical practitioners, registered nurses and others from liability in respect of voluntary
first aid and medical services, bill to relieve, Mr. Shulman, first reading 96
Enlarged Lakehead municipality, statement by Mr. Robarts 96
Qualifications of Mr. Bruce Goulet, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Bullbrook 97
Lakehead mentally retarded sheltered workshop, question to Mr. Yaremko, Mr. Stokes 98
Commemoration of birth of Hon. George Brown, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Nixon 98
Increase in doctors' fees, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. MacDonald 99
School bus transportation, questions to Mr. Davis, Mr. T. Reid and Mr. Pitman 99
Comfort allowances for disabled persons in hospitals for chronically ill, Mr. Shulman 100
Provincial tax on drugs, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Burr 100
Motor vehicle exhaust pollution, question to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Burr 100
Construction and maintenance costs of hospitals, question to Mr. Dymond, Mr. De Monte 101
Closing of Murray Avenue at QEW, question to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Deans 101
Patients at Penetang Ontario Hospital, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Shulman 102
Mr. William Lumley, question to Mr. Grossman, Mr. Shulman 102
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Nixon 104
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Nixon, agreed to 119
On notice of motion No. 15, Mr. Snow, Mr. Haggerty, Mr. Young 119
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 123
93
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met today at 2.30 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests students from the follow-
ing schools: In the east gallery Elia junior
high school, Downsview and Barton high
school, Hamilton; in the west gallery from
R. H. King collegiate institute, Scarborough.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Mr. Olde of the select committee appointed
to prepare the lists of members to compose
the standing committees of the House, pre-
sented the committee's report which was read
as follows and adopted:
Your committee recommends that the lists
of standing committees ordered by the House
be composed of the following members:
Agriculture and Food: Belanger, Burr,
Downer, Edighoffer, Evans, Farquhar, Gaunt,
Gilbertson, Gisborn, Haggerty, Hamilton,
Henderson, Hodgson (York North), Innes,
Jessiman, Johnston (Carleton), Kennedy,
MacDonald, Makarchuk, Morningstar, Mc-
Neil, Newman (Ontario South), Olde, Pater-
son, Mrs. Renwick (Scarborough Centre),
Root, Rowe, Ruston, Smith (Simcoe East),
Snow, Spence, Villeneuve, Whitney and
Young - 34.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Education and University Affairs: Bull-
brook, Johnston (Parry Sound), Johnston
(Carleton), Kennedy, Kerr, Knight, Lawlor,
Lawrence (Carleton East), Lewis, Martel,
Morrow, Newman ( Windsor - Walkerville ) ,
Newman (Ontario South), Pitman, Price,
Mrs. Pritchard, Reid (Rainy River), Reid
(Scarborough East), Rollins, Rowe, Smith
(Hamilton Mountain) — 21.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Government Commissions: Apps, Bernier,
Boyer, Bukator, Carton, Deans, Demers,
Downer, Evans, Ferrier, Gaunt, Good, Hodg-
son (York North), Jessiman, Johnston (Parry
Monday, Novemrer 25, 1968
Sound), Kennedy, Lewis, MacKenzie, Meen,
Morningstar, McNeil, Olde, Price, Mrs.
Pritchard, Renwick (Riverdale), Rollins,
Sargent, Shulman, Smith (Hamilton Moun-
tain), Smith (Nipissing), Snow, Sopha, Stokes,
Trotter - 34.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Health: Apps, Belanger, Ben, Brown,
Demers, De Monte, Dunlop, Gilbertson,
Johnston (St. Catharines), Morrow, Newman
(Ontario South), Potter, Mrs. Pritchard, Mrs.
Renwick (Scarborough Centre), Rowe, Rus-
ton, Shulman, Smith (Hamilton Mountain),
Smith (Nipissing), Trotter, Winkler — 21.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Highways and Transport: Belanger, Ben,
Bernier, Burr, Carton, D.wison, D2ans,
Farquhar, Gilbertson, Hamilton, Hodgson
(York North), Innes, Jackson, Jessiman,
Johnston (Carleton), Kerr, Knight, Mac-
Kenzie, Martel, Meen, Morin, Morningstar,
McNeil, Newman ( Windsor - Walkerville ) ,
Olde, Root, Rowe, Snow, Spence, Villeneuve,
Whitney, Worton, Yakabuski, Young — 34.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Lahour: Apps, Bernier, Boyer, Braithwaite,
Bullbrook, Demers, De Monte, Gisborn, Hag-
gerty, Jessiman, Johnston (St. Catharines),
Kerr, Lawrence (Carleton East), Makarchuk,
Morningstar, Newman (Ontario South),
Pilkey, Smith (Simcoe East), Smith (Hamil-
ton Mountain), Sopha, Winkler — 21.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Legal Bills and Municipal Affairs:
Boyer, Bullbrook, Carton, Deacon, Demers,
Dunlop, Good, Henderson, Johnston (St.
Catharines), Kerr, Lawlor, Lawrence (Carle-
ton East), Meen, Morin, Price, Renwick
(Riverdale), Singer, Sopha, Winkler, Yaka-
buski, Young — 21.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Natural Resources and Tourism: Allan,
Apps, Bernier, Boyer, Davison, Demers,
94
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Edighoffer, Evans, Farquhar, Gilbertson,
Haggerty, Hodgson ( Victoria - Haliburton ) ,
Innes, Jackson, Jessiman, Johnston (Parry
Sound), Johnston (St. Catharines), Knight,
MacDonald, Makarchuk, Martel, Morin, New-
man (Ontario South), Paterson, Potter, Reid
(Rainy River), Rollins, Root, Smith (Simcoe
East), Spence, Stokes, Villeneuve, Whitney,
Yakabuski - 34.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Private Bills: Belanger, Bernier, Brei-
thaupt, Bukator, Bullbrook, Carton, Deacon,
Deans, De Monte, Downer, Edighoffer,
Evans, Ferrier, Gaunt, Gilbertson, Hamilton,
Henderson, Hodgson (York North), Jackson,
Johnston (Parry Sound), Johnston (St. Cath-
arines), Kennedy, Kerr, Lawlor, Lawrence
(Carleton East), MacDonald, Meen, Morin,
Morningstar, McNeil, Newman (Windsor-
Walkerville), Olde, Peacock, Pilkey, Pitman,
Potter, Price, Mrs. Pritchard, Rollins, Root,
Sargent, Singer, Smith (Simcoe East), Smith
(Hamilton Mountain), Sopha, Villeneuve,
Whitney, Winkler, Worton, Yakabuski — 50.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Privileges and Elections: Allan, Belan-
ger, Bernier, Braithwaite, Downer, Dunlop,
Hamilton, Henderson, Johnston (Carleton),
Lawlor, Meen, Newman ( Windsor - Walker-
ville), Olde, Potter, Price, Renwick (River-
dale), Rollins, Shulman, Singer, Smith (Nipis-
sing), Worton — 21.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Public Accounts: Allan, Apps, Breithaupt,
Deacon, Gaunt, Lawrence (Carleton East),
Morrow, Peacock, Potter, Renwick (River-
dale), Smith (Simcoe East), Snow — 12.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Social, Family and Correctional Serv-
ices: Belanger, Ben, Braithwaite, Breithaupt,
Brown, Burr, Carruthers, Demers, Dunlop,
Hodgson ( Victoria - Haliburton ) , Jessiman,
Kennedy, Morningstar, Morrow, Mrs. Pritch-
ard, Mrs. Renwick (Scarborough Centre),
Rowe, Ruston, Smith (Hamilton Mountain),
Trotter, Villeneuve — 21.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of seven members.
Standing Orders and Printing: Boyer,
Bukator, Carruthers, Davison, Downer, Far-
quhar, Hamilton, Henderson, Hodgson (Vic-
toria-Haliburton), Johnston (Parry Sound),
MacKenzie, Martel, Morin, Morrow, Paterson,
Reid (Rainy River), Smith (Simcoe East),
Snow, Whitney, Yakabuski, Young — 21.
The quorum of the said committee to con-
sist of five members.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE EXPROPRIATION ACT, 1968-1969
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General)
moves first reading of bill intituled, The Ex-
propriation Act, 1968-1969.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the bill
which 1 have just had the privilege of intro-
ducing represents a result of our exhaustive
review of the recommendations of the Hon.
J. C. McRuer in his report on civil rights and
the recommendations in the report of the
Ontario Law Reform Commission relative to
the basis for compensation on expropriation.
While I would not ordinarily take the time
of this House, Mr. Speaker, to go into detail
on the first reading of a bill, I did feel that
the exceptional nature, the fundamental
aspects of this bill, merit a brief comment
which may assist the members in reviewing
the subject matter of the bill.
The various recommendations that have
been made have all been considered and the
great majority of them are now represented
in this legislation. They have been codified
in some aspects to meet, in a practical way,
the significant problems which are inherent
in expropriation matters, while at the same
time the fundamental principles inherent in
the recommendations have, I believe, been
maintained. If I may, I will review some of
the principal features which are dealt with
by the bill.
Before any expropriation can take place
under the new law, an interested owner can
require that an inquiry be held in public as
to the fairness, soundness and necessity of
the particular expropriation.
This would give all of those owners inter-
ested, and the expropriation authority, an
opportunity to review with public dialogue
the various aspects of any proposed expropri-
ation.
The enquiry officer would then make his
report upon the proposed expropriation and
this would be submitted to an approving
authority which would be a politically re-
sponsible group representative of the people.
We have attempted to ensure that in every
NOVEMBER 25, 1968
95
case of expropriation, the ultimate approval
would have to be given by an elected indi-
vidual or group of individuals, since we agree
widi the proposition that the talcing of prop-
erty for the public interest must by its nature
be the decision of a person elected by the
people.
The approving authority after considering
the enquiry officer's report would make its
decision as to the expropriation. It will be
noted that the expropriating authority is a
completely different agent from the approving
authority.
In short, we have provided that there can
be a file of necessity, in every case where
property is taken by way of expropriation,
that this is a public hearing, and that the final
decision following a report by the enquiry
officer will be made by an elected person or
persons who are responsible to the electors.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, will also introduce
the principle of equivalent reinstatement for
the owners of residences, which must be ex-
propriated for the public purpose. Under the
bill, the land compensation tribunal will have
the authority to award an amount of addi-
tional compensation, over and above market
value, where the property taken is a residence
and where equivalent accommodation may
not be provided by the market value of
the expropriated property with the other
allowances that are now going to be made
available.
This is a new principle which may cause
some difficulties for expropriating authorities.
But we feel it will provide a new and wel-
come degree of equity in dealing with home-
owners. The new bill codifies the basis of
compensation for expropriation and expressly
provides that it will be based upon the market
value of the land, damages attributable to
disturbance, damages for injurious affection
and any special difficulties in relocation.
Market value is defined as the amount that
would be obtained by the willing seller on a
sale to a willing buyer in the open market.
Other sections clarify the principles in-
herent in this new and broad approach to
compensation.
Hon. members will be interested in the
fact that damages for disturbances will speci-
fically include moving, legal and survey cost
on relocation, together with the 5 per cent
allowance for residence owners who must find
new homes. Many procedural changes have
been made to further ensure that property
owners will be dealt with on a fair and
reasonable basis. Expropriating authorities
will have to pay to the owners 100 per cent
of the market value of the property within
three months of the expropriation or before
taking possession, whichever is the earlier. At
the same time, the authority will make an
offer of the total amount it is willing to pay
to that owner, including amounts for dis-
turbance, injurious affection and relocation.
When making that offer, the expropriating
authority will be required to provide the
owner with a copy of the authority's appraisal
report, upon which that offer is based. In
return, the owner will not have to disclose
his appraisal report unless and until the mat-
ter goes to arbitration and at that point
there will have to be prior disclosure.
Provision is made in this bill for payment
to the owner of his legal and appraisal costs,
which are reasonably incurred in those cases
where the owner, after arbitration, recovers
more than was offered by the expropriating
authority. If the owner recovers less, then
the board will have a discretion to award
costs to either party on a less generous basis.
The bill reflects the recommendation of
the Hon. J. C. McRuer as to the establishment
of a land compensation tribunal which will
be a new board constituted to deal par-
ticularly with these compensation matters.
The board of negotiation which has been a
most useful and effective remedy, will be
retained as the first step in promoting settle-
ment in these compensation disputes, while
there will be an ultimate appeal to the court
of appeal from decisions of the land com-
pensation tribunal. There are many other
features of this bill, Mr. Speaker, upon which
I could comment, particularly since they are
of such significance and interest to the people
of this province. However, I have taken
enough of the time of the hon. members and
I am sure that we will all be able to pursue
the principles and the details of this bill
together in the near future. I commend this
to the hon. members, for we feel that it
represents the enactment of many principles
upon which all members of this House are
in complete agreement.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me on first
reading, a question to the Attorney General
on the statement and the bill that is before
us: It appears to me from the Attorney
General's remarks the bill that we have now
read for the first time today embodies many
of the corrections to many of the objections
that have been stated from this side over
the years. For this reason, we welcome it—
we welcome it enthusiastically.
I would like to ask the Minister if it is
roughly parallel to the federal Expropriation
96
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Procedures Act, which is before Parliament
at the present time?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well Mr. Speaker, quite
frankly I do not know. We have some know-
ledge of it, but I have not seen the federal
bill and I would rather speculate that we
go broader and farther.
THE MUNICIPAL ACT
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth) moves first read-
ing of bill intituled, An Act to amend The
Municipal Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
this bill is to try to safeguard the interests
of the tenants, and I hope it will receive
the same kind of wholehearted support that
the bill which was introduced by the hon.
Attorney General has just received.
The purpose of the bill is the control of
leases and rents and to establish a rent control
board. It is a piece of permissive legislation
and would allow municipalities to establish,
where necessary, rental control boards to
ensure that the people of this province are
no longer going to have inflicted upon them
the many great impositions.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has stated
the purpose of his bill and he does not need
to go into an explanation of it at this stage.
Second reading is the appropriate place for
that.
If the hon. member has anything further
to say with respect to the bill, which he
thinks would be within the rules and of im-
portance to the members, he is free to do so.
Mr. Deans: Yes, I would say that in this
bill there is provision for a fine of $2,000
in the event that a conviction is registered
against any person who should see fit to
ignore it.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think the considera-
tion of the bill clause by clause, or what is
in it, is a proper statement at this particular
stage of the bill's history; we need merely a
statement as to its purpose and I think the
hon. member has given that.
COMMISSIONER TO INVESTIGATE
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND
ACTS OF OFFICIALS
Mr. V. M. Singer {Downsview) moves first
reading of a bill intituled, An Act to provide
for the appointment of a commissioner to
investigate administrative decisions and acts
of officials of the government of Ontario and
its agencies and to define the commissioner's
powers and duties.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
this bill is my fifth effort to try and bring
the government around to providing an
ombudsman for the province of Ontario. As
you know, sir, an ombudsman would be an
official who would be able to protect the
citizens of this province against arbitrary,
unfair and unusual acts by the civil service,
and for which the citizen now has no other
remedy.
RELIEF OF MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS,
REGISTERED NURSES AND OTHERS
FROM LIABILITY
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to relieve
medical practitioners, registered nurses and
others from liability in respect of voluntary
first aid and medical services.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, this bill is
similar to one introduced earlier in this House
but differs in that it protects not just doctors
but all good Samaritans from legal action.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Prime Minister has
a statement.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, this afternoon the hon. Minister of
Municipal Affairs (Mr. McKeough) is in the
Lakehead, meeting with the municipal coun-
cils of the cities of Fort William and Port
Arthur and the adjoining townships of Nee-
bing and Shuniah. The purpose of his visit
it to announce the intention of the govern-
ment to present legislation during this ses-
sion of the Legislature for the amalgamation
of the two cities and parts of the townships
of Shuniah and Neebing into one munici-
pality.
It is the conclusion of the government that
the immediate and, of perhaps greater im-
portance, the long-term interests of the Lake-
head community will be best served through
the policies and administration of a single
municipal jurisdiction.
The decision in favour of amalgamation is
the culmination of a series of studies and de-
liberations which followed the completion of
a local government review in March of this
year. The research findings of the review,
NOVEMBER 25, 1968
97
together with the briefs submitted by local
municipal councils, organizations and indi-
viduals have been given extensive analysis
by the staff of The Department of Municipal
Affairs and other departments and agencies
of the government affected by the recom-
mendations.
During the weeks ahead, further considera-
tion will be given to the matter of precise
boundaries, finances, and the organization
and structure for representation and munici-
pal services. In this connection, the Minister
of Municipal Affairs will look to the inter-
municipal committee established last spring
to maintain a continuing liaison with the
Lakehead and district municipalities. The
inter-municipal committee represents the
Lakehead municipalities and the district of
Thunder Bay, and has performed a most
important function as liaison with the gov-
ernment. I should like to express the appre-
ciation of the government for the dedication
and hard work of the members of this com-
mittee. Their continued co-operation ensures
that the more detailed aspects of the pro-
posal for amalgamation will be resolved in a
manner which will meet the needs of the
people of the Lakehead area.
Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, the local
government review also proposed a "district
municipality", which would be a regional
government consisting of the proposed Lake-
head city and the district of Thunder Bay.
The government does not plan the immediate
establishment of a full scale regional govern-
ment for this district. Rather, any steps to
implement this recommendation, would have
implications for all of the districts which
make up the northern part of our province.
Accordingly, on September 12, during the
tour of northern Ontario by members of the
Legislature, I announced the appointment of
an inter-departmental committee to examine
government at the district level in northern
Ontario. This committee will report in mid-
1969 on the application of the recommenda-
tions contained in the Lakehead local gov-
ernment review, to the municipalities and
unorganized territories within the districts of
Ontario.
Any action to bring about a regional gov-
ernment for the Thunder Bay district will be
determined, at least in part, by the findings
of the inter-departmental committee.
I might add that this committee will sched-
ule meetings in several locations in northern
Ontario so that the elected municipal offi-
cials in the districts will be able to meet
with the committee to discuss the proposed
regional organization and the special interests
of the people of the districts.
Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. member have a
question?
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): No, Mr. Speaker,
this is with reference to introduction of bills.
I have a question of you, Mr. Speaker. I
have just received from the Clerk a copy of
a bill by the hon. member for Wentworth
(Mr. Deans), and I have one in exactly the
same form, word for word. Is there any pro-
cedure whereby I could dispense with the
usual notice and have it put in now?
Mr. Speaker: Not only do we usually need
the notice, but the order has been closed and
I would suggest that the hon. member's pur-
pose would be equally well served by intro-
ducing it tomorrow and they will be printed
for consideration— may I just check with the
Clerk?
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The hon.
member is following more closely, but he is
still following.
Mr. Speaker: The Clerk also advises me of
something that should have been patent to
me; that if it is word for word then it is out
of order because we cannot have two bills
which are word for word.
I am afraid the hon. member was not on
his feet quickly enough. The hon. Minister
of Justice.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, on Novem-
ber 21, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr.
Bullbrook) asked a question in three parts. I
answered the first two and I promised him an
answer to the third part which had to do with
the qualifications of Mr. Bruce Goulet in con-
nection with his appontment as a member of
the board of police commissioners for the city
of North Bay.
I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Goulet
is president of the United Nations Associa-
tion of North Bay; is past president of the
North Bay Chamber of Commerce; for many
years was chairman of the public affairs com-
mittee of that chamber and in this capacity
he has worked closely with the municipal
council and has been keenly interested in
provincial and federal affairs. He is a mem-
ber of the department of industry of North
Bay, which is a committee of the council and
is interested in the industrial development of
the North Bay area.
He is chairman of the Dominion Day com-
mittee as well as chairman of the Centennial
I
98
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
committee for that city. He is at present a
member of the Rotary club and chairman of
the crippled children's committee, which as
we all know is one of the main programmes
of Rotary International. He is also a member
of the Canadian Legion.
In 1967, Mr. Goulet was selected "Man of
the Year" for North Bay. This is an honour
which is not always conferred annually but
only when there is someone deserving of such
recognition.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): How many
votes did he lose by last fall? Was he beaten
badly?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Surely the hon. member
is not suggesting that he should not have
involvement in public affairs?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
of the hon. Minister of Social and Family
Services. Is the Minister investigating the
role played by the Metropolitan Toronto
Catholic children's aid society in the case of
Theresa Macintosh, who died October 10?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, we are natur-
ally concerned about this case. But it is still
before a coroners' jury and, as you know, the
inquest will resume Wednesday. It would be
unfair to comment in any way while the jury
is discharging its very serious responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask your indulgence to
have the other two questions put to me by
hon. members of the House? The member
for Thunder Bay?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition and the hon. member for York South
(Mr. MacDonald) would agree; I believe the
Minister has to leave to keep an appointment.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr.
Speaker, I do have a question for the Minister
of Social and Family Services. Has the Min-
ister received a request for a capital grant
from the Lakehead Association for the Men-
tally Retarded sheltered workshop?
Is the Minister prepared to consider their
request?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, I do have
such a request and it is presently being con-
sidered.
Mr. Speaker: The horn member for High
Park (Mr. Shulman) is not in his seat so his
question will not be answered. The hon.
leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Prime Minister. What arrangements
will be made to celebrate the 150th anni-
versary of the birth of the Hon. George
Brown, that great Liberal?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. members are doubtless aware, this
centenary is on Friday of this week.
Mr. Nixon: That would not be centenary.
It is sesquicentennial.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: At one stage of the game
we had hoped to have a dinner, but through
a whole series of circumstances that became
impossible. I might say I invited the Prime
Minister of Canada to that dinner, but he
could not make it. I thought he could attend
to represent the Liberal Party of Canada.
I will have a full rundown on some cere-
monies that we plan to conduct here and out-
side the buildings. If hon. members will be
patient I will announce these to the House
after I have had an opportunity to discuss
them, Mr. Speaker, with the leader of the
Opposition and the leader of the New Demo-
cratic Party. We will probably be able to do
that before the House sits tomorrow and then
we will be able to lay the full programme out
before the members.
We intend to honour the birth date of this
great Canadian in as auspicious a way as
possible.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the
Premier would agree that the time is grow-
ing quite short and perhaps we ought to have
undertaken some planning at an earlier date.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: We undertook a lot of
planning at an earlier date but there have
just been a whole series of events that con-
flict; you know sometimes you run into these
situations. However, Friday is the actual
anniversary day and I will tell hon. members
all about it when we get the final "i's" dotted
and "t's" crossed and then we will announce
the programme in the House.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I was informed some two weeks
ago, or thereabouts, that there was going to
be such a celebration on November 29, so I
do not feel that I have been left out of the
picture.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): The Prime
Minister does not seem to know about it—
or very little about it.
NOVEMBER 25, 1968
99
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Maybe the
hon. member knows more than he does.
Mr. Mat-Donald: Maybe it is the Secretary
of the Cabinet who is pursuing the details.
Mr. Trotter: Maybe the civil servants tell
him.
Hon. Mr. Rob arts: I am quite certain the
leader of the Opposition has heard about this
too.
Mr. MacDonald: I have two questions, Mr.
Speaker.
The first one is held over from Friday— to
the Minister of Health. Was the government
informed of the recent decision to increase
doctors' fees before it was publicly an-
nounced? What further outlay from thr pub-
lic Treasury, through OMSIP expenditures,
will result from this fee increase? Does the
Minister feel that such an increase can hence-
forth be made unilaterally without consulta-
tion or negotiation?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from the
OMA on October 18 of this year indicating
that an increase in fees of approximately ten
per cent would be implemented April, 1969.
The answer to the second part, it is not
possible to answer this question until we
know the detailed changes which arc being
proposed.
The third part. I am still hopeful that
arrangements can be made with the profession
to agree on a fee schedule that machinery
for negotiation can be established to our
mutual satisfaction.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough West. The Minister of Labour (Mr.
Bales) is not present at the moment.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Scar-
lx)rough East or Scarborough West?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough East, yes!
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the Minister of Education. What
safety specifications, if any, for school buses
does the Minister of Education require be-
fore school children can be transported in
those buses to and from school?
The second part of the question: What
physical health and fitness standards, if any,
does the Minister of Education set for bus
drivers who transport children to and from
school?
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member for
Peterborough would place his question at the
same time. They are not related but they
have to do with the same subject matter.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the recent
traffic deaths of two Peterborough students,
would the Minister consider an investigation
of school bus routes in each school jurisdic-
tion to ensure that these buses are making
use of the safest as well as the most direct
routes?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education):
Mr. Speaker, to answer that part for the
member for Scarborough East first: The ques-
tion of specifications for school bus trans-
portation fall within the jurisdiction of The
Department of Transport. I regret I did not
see this question until just a very few
minutes before the House sat so I was not
able to contact the Minister of Transport (Mr.
Haskett) so that he might be able to give
the hon. members this material; and of course
this applies to the second part of the question
as well.
With respect to the question from the
member for Peterborough. One of the basic
responsibilities of the new divisional boards
when they commence their operations within
a very few weeks will, of course, be to review
bus routes. The boards have always taken
the question of school safety and safety of
the children with respect to bus routes, as
one of their very prime considerations and
I fully expect that they will do this when
the new divisional boards are created.
I think we all regret, Mr. Speaker, the very
unfortunate occurrence, the tragedy of last
week. I can only say that as far as the
boards are concerned generally, we have
had a very excellent safety record in this
province. I am very satisfied that they make
a very conscious effort to see to the safety of
the young people. Really these questions are
their prime considerations.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member
for Scarborough East would allow me to
transfer the question to the Minister of
Transport so that it may be answered.
Mr. T. Reid: On your ruling, sir!
I have just asked the Minister of Education
if he does not feel that he should have
been making recommendations to the other
department of this government; that he
should not have been sitting on his seat for
so long in this regard; that he has a direct
100
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
responsibility to offer some leadership in this
area.
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with great
respect to the member for Scarborough East
there are specifications. They are there with-
in The Department of Transport right now
and if the hon. member would perhaps just
have the patience, and to a degree the cour-
tesy, to transfer the question to the appro-
priate Minister, I am sure he would get an
appropriate and courteous answer.
Mr. T. Reid: And meanwhile, two more
children-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
A supplementary from the other member
who placed a question.
Mr. Pitman: A supplementary question. I
was wondering whether the Minister might
consider grants to local school boards for
carrying on investigations of this sort. It
would appear to me that as these larger juris-
dictions are organized, a great deal of edu-
cation is going to be achieved by bussing
students back and forth.
I investigated this particular accident-
Mr. Speaker: Order: Perhaps the hon.
Minister might investigate just simply rail-
road crossings— could there be a special grant
to investigate railroad crossings as they affect
school buses in local jurisdictions?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not
purport to be knowledgeable in the whole
question of transportation, but I would sug-
gest that it should not, surely, require a
special grant to investigate any hazard or
questionable part of a school bus route; that
the board must automatically consider this
and make every effort to ensure that buses
are taking the safest possible route. I do not
see where any special grant would really
reveal anything that they do not presently
know.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Provincial Secretary.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury has the floor.
Mr. Sopha: Thank you, sir. Would the
Provincial Secretary inform the House, in a
general way, if specific figures are not avail-
able of the nature of the increase in revenue
over the same period last year to the liquor
control board of Ontario during the Quebec
liquor strike? If possible, could the House
have an indication of the increase in profits
during the same period?
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I will have to take this ques-
tion as notice.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member for High
Park would care to ask the question of the
Minister of Social and Family Services, who
advised me he was leaving the House at
3.05, the floor is now his.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, will the Min-
ister institute a comfort allowance for those
disabled persons with no income who are
confined to Ontario's hospitals for the chron-
ically ill?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, our pro-
grammes and their application to persons
such as the chronically ill are always under
review and they are presently.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister give more
information?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sand-
wich-Riverside has two questions from last
week. Perhaps, he would place them now.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Speaker, a question of the Prime Minister:
Has the government given consideration to
a November 4 letter from Windsor city
council stating its firm opposition to a pro-
vincial tax on drugs?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I am
quite certain that letter has been given con-
sideration. I do not recall whether it came
to my desk or not, but certainly we give full
consideration to all such recommendations
and the hon. member can be assured that
this opinion of the Windsor city council will
be given every consideration.
Mr. Burr: Thank you, sir. A question for
the Minister of Health: Does the Minister
share the opinion of Doctor J. Z. Sullivan of
The Department of National Health and
Welfare that motor vehicle exhaust pollu-
tion is not a health problem in Canada and
is unlikely ever to become one?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the an-
swer is "no", I do not share the opinion
and as evidence of that, the government of
Ontario has already got legislation on the
statute book and regulations in effect requir-
ing that all motor vehicles sold in Ontario,
in this present model year, must be equipped
with the air pollution control equipment as
NOVEMBER 25, 1968
101
recommended and approved by the United
States government.
I would advise the House and the industry
now, through this means, sir, that in 1970
the regulations will be even more stringent.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Dover-
court has a question from last week.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): Yes,
Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of
Health.
What is the percentage of the provincial
contribution of the capital cost of new con-
struction of hospitals? And a second question:
what is the percentage of the provincial con-
tribution of the maintenance cost of hospitals?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the answer
to this question is much longer than the
question.
The province accepts responsibility for
two-thirds of the approved capital construc-
tion costs. And now, since the federal gov-
ernment is no longer paying anything towards
capital construction of hosiptals, the province
must find this entire two-thirds.
In the case of northern Ontario hospitals,
because of their location and their responsi-
bilities, an additional grant was paid over
and above the usual two-thirds and this
grant amounts to $2,000 per active treatment
bed or bed equivalent and $1,000 for each
chronic or convalescent bed or bed equivalent
in municipalities of 12,000 and under and
$500 and $250 respectively in municipalities
over 12,000.
In the case of teaching hospitals the total
cost is provided and, of course, this is subject
to whatever grants we are able to squeeze
out of the federal health resources fund.
In the case of hospitals that serve two
purposes; that of teaching and community
service as well, the two-thirds approved cost
applies in respect of the area dedicated to
community service; and 50 per cent grant is
applied to that part of the hospital used for
its teaching function.
The other 50 per cent hopefully, was to
come from the federal health resources fund
but in light of the decision made recently,
which represented a direct change in the
rules made in 1965, we can hardly tell what
percentage will come from the federal gov-
ernment. We are quite convinced and quite
certain now, of course, that it will be much
less than 50 per cent, and therefore the pro-
vincial share will be much higher than 50
per cent.
In the case of regional rehabilitation hos-
pitals, the full approved cost is paid.
In the case of ambulance facilities— that
is, facilities in connection with a hospital
to house an ambulance— the full approved
cost is paid.
The province's contribution to the cost of
hospital maintenance is 32.5 per cent of the
whole.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
worth.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I
might be permitted a brief comment on the
remarks of the hon. member for Humber
before I ask my question.
Mr. Speaker: TJie hon. member has the
floor for the purpose of asking a question.
This is not the appropriate time to comment
on speeches or remarks by other hon. mem-
bers.
Mr. Deans: Fine. I will ask only the sec-
ond part of my question to the Minister of
Highways.
Will the Minister consider, in the interest
of minimizing traffic fatalities, re-applying to
the Ontario municipal board for immediate
emergency permission to effect the closing
of Murray Avenue to Queen Elizabeth High-
way?
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, I answered the hon. member's
question. He left out the first part this time
and I can say again that we are proceeding
with all possible speed on the engineering,
the plans and specifications to live up to
what the board has asked us to do.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask a
supplementary question?
The question I asked was, "Would you
reapply to the board in order to hasten the
closing"— the board gave permission some ten
years ago—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Deans: It has taken that long-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member has
placed his supplementary question. Now the
Minister has the opportunity, if he wishes,
to answer it.
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, we do not
think that is necessary at the present time
because we are proceeding as fast as possible.
102
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question of the hon. Minister of
Transport.
1. Would the Minister advise the House
when the 45-mile-per-hour "construction"
speed limit will be removed from completed
portions of the Queen Elizabeth Way east
of the Highway 27 interchange?
2. Would the Minister agree that the main-
tenance of the 45-mile-per-hour speed limit is
inconsistent with his statement to the House
on April 7, 1967? Hansard, p. 1183.
3. With respect to construction speed zones
generally, why is the same speed limit main-
tained at all times, whether or not construc-
tion is in progress, instead of being adjusted
to actual conditions, particularly at week-
ends when construction work ceases?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, in that we must rely, I am
sure the hon. member understands, on The
Department of Highways for information in
applying construction zone speed limits. I
find it necessary to defer the answer until
tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member a
supplementary question?
Mr. Young: No, I am sorry, I had another
question for the Attorney General, but I will
ask that tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, the Attorney General is
not here.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the Minister of Health: It is in three
parts:
1. Are staff members at the Penetang On-
tario Hospital allowed to employ patients as
domestics and for staff home labour?
2. What pay are the patients given for
this work?
3. Is it the policy of The Department of
Health to allow staff an extra perquisite in
the form of cheap labour?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I do not
understand what the hon. member means by
the first part of his question. If he wants to
clarify it, I shall try to get the answer.
The second part: Patients can be placed
in homes of staff as part of the industrial
therapy programme. Staff asking use of such
services are charged at a rate that is based
on a comparison for work the individual is
able to do with the outside labour market.
This amount is paid to the industrial therapy
fund out of which all patients involved in
the programme receive incentive payments.
The answer to the third part of the question
is no.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister allow a
supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Do I misunderstand the Min-
ister? Is his answer that the money is all
paid into one fund and then is divided
among all the patients and that none of the
money goes directly to the patient doing the
work?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: It is paid into the in-
dustrial therapy fund, sir, and divided among
the patients who qualify for withdrawals
from this fund.
Mr. Shulman: In the form of a second
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can
the Minister-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister said that
he would not accept a further supplementary
question. The member might perhaps go
on to his other question.
Mr. Shulman: A question to the Minister
of Correctional Services.
When is Mr. William Lumley to be trans-
ferred from Sarnia jail to a reformatory, as
promised in a letter from The Department of
Correctional Services of October 31, 1968?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correc-
tional Services): Mr. Speaker, in answer to
the hon. member's question; the decision to
transfer this man from the Lambton county
jail to a reformatory, was made by the classi-
fication committee on October 31, 1968. Ar-
rangements were made for his transfer to
take place on the next routine trip to this
area made by the departmental bailiffs.
For security reasons, it is not deemed
advisable to give publicly the exact date of
the transfer, but if the hon. member so
wishes, I am prepared to provide him with
this information on a strictly confidential
basis. In the interest, Mr. Speaker, of the
rehabilitation of persons concerned, I would
again appeal to the hon. member to please
continue the practice followed by the hon.
members of this House during the last ses-
sion of not publicly identifying inmates by
narre.
Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware of the
hazardous driving conditions that prevail on
highway 585, which runs from Nipigon to
Pine Portage? When will the Minister in-
NOVEMBER 25, 1968
103
struct his department to start on a pro-
gramme of reconstruction of highway 585
as promised during the last session?
Hon. Mr. Comrne: Mr. Speaker, I just
received this question as I came into the
House and I will have to take it as notice
and supply the answer.
Mr. N. Whitney (Prince Edward-Lennox):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege
relating to the statements in the Toronto
Globe and Mail last Friday, also in the Belle-
ville Intelligencer of the same day, as stated
by the hon. leader of the NDP, following
their return from a visit to Picton. It is my
opinion that certain statements were made
which were derogatory in their nature to cer-
tain of the people I represent, some named,
some not named. I would like to quote first
from the Globe and Mail statement, and then
briefly from the Intelligencer statement.
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, for clarification: When a statement
of privilege is made in the House, sir, must
it not relate directly to the member as he
is affected rather than those he represents?
Would the member not have appropriate
time in the Throne debate to raise this kind
of thing?
Mr. Speaker: My understanding of the
hon. member's opening preamble with re-
spect to this point of privilege was that it
affected not only the people he represented
but himself as their representative. So far
as I am concerned, as long as he brings
i himself within my interpretation of what he
has said, I think he is in order. But he is
not in order merely to comment upon news-
Ipaper statements about things in his riding.
Mr. Whitney: Mr. Speaker, in order to
supply the background, I will quote briefly
from what appeared in the Globe and Mail:
New Democratic Party leader Donald
MacDonald yesterday described Mayor
Harvey J. McFarland of Picton as a million-
aire contractor made wealthy from public
funds and leading a "Tory - dominated
establishment" against striking workers at
Proctor-Silex Canada Ltd.
In the early hours of yesterday's session
of the Legislature, the 20 NDP seats were
empty as Mr. MacDonald led 18 caucus
members to the strike site. In a press con-
ference after he returned, he described the
trip as an attempt to dramatize a situation
the NDP will fight to the end.
The MPPs joined picketing at the plant,
obeying a court injunction limiting pickets
to six at a time.
Mr. MacDonald described Mr. McFar-
land as owner of the company's land and
building and said he collects $58,000 a
year in rent.
"Mr. McFarland made his wealth from
the public purse," Mr. MacDonald said,
referring to highways contracts Mr. Mc-
Farland has bid on and carried out for the
government. "He is a source of funds for
Tory candidates in the area. He is a well-
known Tory and a source of slush funds.
"Both old parties traditionally produce
highways millionaires when they are in
power."
Mr. MacDonald said he did not talk to—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is going
far too long in his quotation. If he has a
point of privilege, he will now bring himself
to it and cease reading from a report which
I am sure all members have read.
Mr. Whitney: I question the statement
"Tory-dominated establishment". Constituents
of mine arc being made to appear as a co-
erced people, which they are not. In Picton
and Prince Edward county we have our
political organizations and municipal councils
regularly elected, our sendee clubs and other
organizations dedicated to public service.
Among all of the people in the area we
know of no group of any kind which has
been organized on behalf of the company.
On the other hand, outside organizers of the
international union of electrical workers
aided and abetted, it would seem, by the
NDP, have and are attempting by every
means at their disposal to organize and influ-
ence public opinion on behalf of the union.
In the absence of organized opposition of
any kind, these people by their own state-
ments and actions have been defeating their
own purposes. The truth is that the people
of Prince Edward have not and will not be
coerced by anyone and I resent any implica-
tion to the contrary as expressed by the NDP
leader.
Secondly, there was a reference made to
Dr. Dockrill, a constituent with whom I may
not always agree. But I regret to hear a
statement was made in the Globe and Mail
that his bank had cut off his credit or was
threatening to cut off his credit because of
his alleged-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is now
straying again to particular cases of people
104
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
in his riding. If he can relate this to personal
privilege as far as he is concerned, as their
representative there, then he is in order.
Otherwise, he is not.
Mr. Whitney: Well, I feel that it is in the
nature of a personal privilege that when a
man's personal financial condition is told to
the world, through a newspaper announce-
ment by someone who briefly visited there,
and who— the quoted party— denies in another
place that he made exactly that statement.
I feel it is a matter of privilege to divulge
what he said following that statement in the
press.
Mr. Speaker: Now the hon. member has
stated his reasons for rising on that point of
privilege. I disagree with him. It is not a
point of privilege as far as the hon. member
is concerned— the matter he is now discussing.
Mr. Whitney: Well, in conclusion, I would
say that as far as the statements which were
made regarding public funds and so on, I am
simply going to briefly state that at times local
Conservatives are annoyed because the gentle-
man in question contributes to the Liberals.
Sometimes Liberals are annoyed because he
contributes to the Conservatives.
He does work for the federal government.
He has done work for many governments.
He has done work practically all over Can-
ada. In fact I would ask the hon. member for
High Park if he knows that sometimes he may
even have contributed to the CCF govern-
ment in Saskatchewan, under T. C. Douglas,
sometime in the past.
Consequently, I object to such statements.
Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. member for
Scarborough West have a point of order or
privilege?
Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, I am sorry to revert to a matter of
such banality. I missed the Minister of
Health's earlier reply. I wonder if he would
indicate to the House— did he 9ay in his
answer to the question, that the Ontario Medi-
cal Association fee schedule was now a fait
accompli for April 1 1969? The Legislature
could have no effect on that decision, is that
his answer?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, my
answer is in Hansard.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-
Kent.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to draw to the attention of the
House the efforts of a young man in my
riding. A 16-year-old 4-H club member
scored a major upset in the seed grain show
at the Royal winter fair last week when he
won the reserve ear corn championship with
a sample of Ontario-grown corn. The Royal
winter fair seed show officials said that never
in the long and colourful history of the Royal
has Ontario corn placed as high in the show
against the powerful high-quality entrants
from the United States.
This was a first championship ever, of any
sort, for Canadian corn at the Royal. The
high-placing Ontario corn was grown and
entered by Robert Baillargeon of Stoney
Point in the township of Tilbury North, in
Ontario's southwestern corn belt. The entry
stood first in the 4-H ear corn class and then
went on to runner-up for the world cham-
pionship ear corn. This is the first time Bob
Baillargeon has exhibited at the Royal. His
brother Raymond, 18, showed at the Royal
last year, and this year took second to his
brother's winning entry in the 4-H club.
Both boys are members of the Tilbury 4-H
corn and soya bean club. They are the sons
of George and Cecile Baillargeon who own
and operate a cash crop farm. The Bail-
largeon family grow corn, wheat, oats, soy
beans, tomatoes and cucumbers.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to say to the hon.
members and to the hon. member who has
just given us this account of excellence in
young farmers that I think the House is glad
to hear these things, but I think that they
can be dealt with much more expeditiously
than by reading a newspaper report on it,
and I would ask the hon. members to co-
operate with me in the future. I will be glad
to allow them the opportunity of making us
aware of and praising the achievements of
their people but I would ask that they keep
it to a reasonable statement of what has hap-
pened without the family and other back-
ground, which is totally unnecessary.
Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The first order, resum-
ing the adjourned debate on the motion for
an address in reply to the speech of the Hon-
ourable the Lieutenant Governor at the open-
ing of the session.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by
once again offering my compliments to you,
NOVEMBER 25, 1968
105
sir, and to say that I am very glad that the
leader of the government has taken the deci-
sion to reconvene Parliament in the autumn
of the year so that our business, I hope, can
be carried on in a more efficient manner and
with the possibility that we might complete
it before we get into the warm months next
July.
I would suggest to you, sir, that if the
business of the province does require a longer
period of time for our perusal and discussion
—as I personally believe it does— we ought to
look for a more efficient and even longer ses-
sion in the autumn of the year.
I have felt for some time, that there are
two things wrong with the ordering of our
business; number one, we are here too long,
and number two, we are away from the Legis-
lature too long. When the business is com-
pacted into one session beginning in Febmary
and extending until the completion of the
business, there is a tendency for spirits to
flag and for our connection with our own
areas to get a bit than as we are away week
after week and particularly with very lengthy-
night sessions as a part of our responsibility.
I have felt myself, Mr. Speaker, that there
is a lack of urgency even in this particular
fall session and that we should be under-
taking a more careful discussion particularly,
of the financial affairs of Ontario rather than
the rather lackadaisical approach that has
been evident in the first few days. My col-
leagues, particularly those from out of town,
would support a move to resume night
sessions at least two nights a week very early
in the fall session so that they might— having
come some distance to partake of their duties
here— be able to work at them more diligently
and more steadily so that the business can
\te accomplished in a shorter period of time
and in a more orderly way.
I know that those members who come
a shorter distance from home would not sup-
port any particular efforts on our part to
have night sessions resumed. Nevertheless, if
we are going to carry out the business effi-
ciently and to make good use of the mem-
bers who have come long distances in order
to represent their areas I would suggest that
night sessions might very well become a part
of our order in the near future.
Now, the speech itself, that we are dis-
cussing this afternoon and I expect we will
be discussing for some days, touches all the
basis of safety as far as the administration
is concerned. But there is one area that I
would like to read to you, sir. It is found on
page three where we are assured that the
province will place and I quote, "renewed
emphasis on efficiency and economy in every
branch and agency of the Ontario govern-
ment". While this, of course, is much to
be desired I hope you would agree with
me, sir, that it is something that we would
expect on the day-to-day ordering of pro-
vincial business and not entered into on rare
occasions by the Premier (Mr. Robarts) and
his Cabinet in order to relieve tax difficulties
that they themselves are responsible for.
So, if this is, in fact, to be an economy
session, a tax session, a budget session, then
surely, while there are other areas of busi-
ness presented to us in the House even
today, we should be turning our attention to
an examination of the budget and to the
spending programmes of the government.
Before I get into that in too much detail,
I want to extend my congratulations to the
member for London South, the new Minister
of Revenue (Mr. White). Frankly, I was con-
vinced when the new portfolio was set up
that it was not necessary to have a separate
individual exercise the responsibility. The
Treasurer has been able to balance both of
these areas of responsibility for many years,
since Confederation as a matter of fact, and
it appeared to me that the new member of
the Cabinet was very much of a super-
numerary and his appointment smacked of
the political pay-off for the fact that he has
been conducting those Monday night sessions
in London on behalf of his colleague from
London North, and that really friendship was
coming through and the London establish-
ment needed something to strengthen it.
I now feel that there is some usefulness
in his appointment, small though that may
be: the example he is setting to his spend-
thrift colleagues and confreres, chief among
them the Prime Minister himself.
I was really gratified to read in the
Globe and Mail last week that he is going
to travel on GO transit as long as possible
and then when the pressures of his duties
require him to have an automobile and a
driver, it will be a stripped-down standard
Chev and that he, unlike his colleagues, is
going to second one of his clerks from his
office to drive him. Surely this is the kind
of example that the other members of the
Cabinet would be glad to receive. It is in
these small areas— these rather picayune ap-
proaches to savings— that I suppose the funds
will be gathered that are going to be sig-
nificant in this, one of the tightest financial
situations Ontario has experienced since Con-
federation—probably the worst one. So if
there is some use for this new Minister, this
106
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
may be it. But once this example has been
set I would tell you, sir, that his usefulness
diminishes once again to zero, and we could
very well, on the road to economy, dispense
with his services and pick up a little bit of
indemnity that could be added to that fund
that he is so concerned with.
You know it is interesting, in reading about
the accounts of the peregrinations of the
Premier and his white-lipped and trembling
colleague, the Treasurer (Mr. MacNaughton),
who is not with us today, that when they go
to Ottawa to confront the government of
Canada with the tremendous needs for more
fiscal abatement, the Premier and Treasurer
travel in our own provincial plane with an
executive configuration, and they are driven
in those large black cars with the flags flying
to meet the Minister of Finance and his col-
leagues in Ottawa, who, I suppose, go by
cab to the meeting. I would not dream for
a moment of reverting to that old argument
that was so effective in depression times—
when my predecessor as leader of the Liberal
Party undertook to turn back the gross ex-
penditures of the Conservative administration
that he had displaced, by auctioning off the
government cars— because really I feel that
the government members have to be moved
about the province and I have no particular
objection to this. They are a rather fearful
lot, though. They covet the big black Cadil-
lacs with the snapping flags on the fenders
but they—
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): We
do not buy Cadillacs.
Mr. Nixon: That is right, there are no
Cadillacs and I think this is significant. They
set their sights down just a little bit and the
Minister of Highways (Mr. Gomme) is able
to make do with a nice black Buick Electra.
Beside the license plate on the back there is
the coat of arms of Ontario. It just makes
your blood heat up a bit to see that moving
down the road— with the double lamps in
the back so that he can read state papers.
I do not know whether he has followed
the example of the Minister of Education
(Mr. Davis), who has a hot line in the back
seat of the automobile— I do not know who
answers him when he pushes the button-
but I think there are two phones there. It
is significant, though, that the Minister of
Revenue is setting the kind of example that
I think would do the whole administration
good if they were to examine it carefully
and follow it, if they could bring themselves
in all humility to do so. This is something,
of course, of some concern, because we are
looking for $300 million, we are told by the
hon. Treasurer, and unless we make up this
particular amount, then we are facing the
kind of fiscal nightmare that both the Treas-
urer and the Premier have described in such
a lurid detail across the province.
I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, and
my colleagues along with you and the other
members of the House, to cast your minds
back to the election campaign last October
in which our friends opposite were so suc-
cessful in returning to the seats of the ad-
ministration with 69 members. I can well
recall the barrage of propaganda that was
put before the people of the province during
the spring and summer months at their own
expense, and for a few weeks during the
election campaign from the swollen slush
funds of the Conservative Party itself. We
were told in great detail about the high
administrative quality of the Premier and
his administration. We were told that On-
tario was not only a place to stand and a
place to grow, but that good government
deserved our support, and that we, in On-
tario, were very fortunate to have the serv-
ices of the Premier and his colleagues, who
were giving us the best government of any-
where in Canada or in North America.
It seems strange to believe that that silver-
haired fox who travelled across the province
in the steps of Leslie Frost, who was re-
assuring those who were having some doubts
about the administrative capabilities of this
administration that all was well, when less
than eleven months later this same man and
his chief lieutenant, the Treasurer, had the
temerity to state publicly that we in Ontario
faced a "fiscal nightmare".
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Nixon: Now if I was to use a phrase
like that, that same man would have accused
me of broadcasting doom and gloom and you
may well recall his urgings to me, as the
leader of the Opposition, and my colleagues,
to give up the predictions of difficulty that
we were making a year ago and to go along
with the Conservatives to a greater and more
prosperous co-prosperity sphere or whatever
it was that he called it. Now we find our-
selves in the difficulties that the Premier and
Treasurer and probably the best fiscal ad-
visors in the civil service of any province
in Canada cannot find means to solve.
It is on this topic that I would like to
spend a few moments this afternoon, be-
cause we are approaching two important
conferences: the constitutional conference,
the dates for which have been set, and a
NOVEMBER 25, 1968
107
financial conference immediately after that.
I think it is necessary that we examine the
difficulties the Premier has led the province
into and that we look at some of the alter-
natives that he must research himself if, in
fact, the government of Canada is going to
be taken at its word and that they are not
to increase the abatement beyond the 28.3
per cent which is now available to this
province.
I would like you to remember, sir, that
the policies of the government of Canada
have been unchanged for two years. I well
remember the return of the Premier from
the last fiscal conference when he had been
told by the then Minister of Finance that
the government in Ottawa was not prepared
to recommend further abatement, unless it
was accompanied by specific further respon-
sibilities.
Whether we support this or not— and I
will get to that in a moment— it seems in-
credible that the Premier would come back
two years ago from a conference of this
type, and you may remember the anger with
which he expressed his understanding of the
rigid position the government of Canada
took then, and how quickly this anger was
lost in the forthcoming election campaign
when he had to give the continuing impres-
sion that all was well in Ontario.
One of the significant political facts in
this province is that for many years the
largest single source of income has been the
abatement from the government of Canada—
$650 million this year alone. It accounts for
a large measure of the public services ex-
tended to our citizens and taxpayers as if
through the generosity of this administration
alone. It is an old fashioned, but applic-
able rule of modern democracy, that the
administration which provides these services
should have the responsibility for taxing for
them as well. Yet the Minister of Revenue
who is sitting back there in smug com-
placancy, saying that he is going to drive a
stripped-down Chev, gets his largest cheque
from the government of Canada— $650 mil-
lion this year alone.
Mr. Speaker, we know that within the
next two months it may very well be that
the leader of the government will send the
Treasurer and the new Minister down to
Ottawa to intercede for Ontario and on be-
half of the difficulties that we are now
encountering in paying our bills.
Imagine Ontario in a situation where we
are running at what the former Treasurer
might have called a $300 million shortfall
which, in fact, must be made up if we are
going to withstand even the debt limits— and
they are large debt limits— set by the Royal
commission on taxation, which said we must
not allow our debts to go beyond nine per
cent of our gross provincial product.
I have already suggested that a part of
these negotiations should be based on a
valiant attempt to get a share of the two
per cent surtax that has been imposed by the
government of Canada in such a way that
we now cannot share in it. My calculations
are that this, in fact, would add $40 to $50
million to the amount that is presently avail-
able under present abatement agreements.
I personally have some misgivings about
the need for the imposition of the tax in the
way that the Minister of Finance saw fit to
do it three weeks ago in the budget that he
brought down. And I am not prepared, as
the people opposite seem to expect, to defend
them chapter and verse in every one of these
decisions.
I suppose we must take for granted that
the government of Canada, faced with a
$700 million deficit, feels that they are hard-
pressed to put their own house in order and
they expect other governments across Canada
to accept the same responsibility.
We have been treated in recent months to
the 25th anniversary of the Conservative
Party in power in Ontario. We have been
embarrassed at their attempts to get sort of a
monkey gland transfusion three weeks ago
down in the Royal York. With the help of
John Bassett, they were able to turn out a
few very attractive young people indeed, but
still in the back rows there was Erskine
Johnston picking a fight with the new presi-
dent and there was the rumour that the
London establishment was not in favour of
Mr. Eagleson becoming the president and
the fact that the Premier had supported
Wallace McCutcheon for the leadership last
year.
It does not indicate to me that the leader
of the government is much of a swinger. I
do not think we are looking for a swinger,
we are looking for somebody who is prepared
to accept provincial responsibilities, prepared
to accept blame along with the responsibility,
when it is his to accept. I cannot help but
recall the campaign a year ago when either
the Premier was ill advised by those who must
have known the difficulties that were ap-
proaching in the financial situation in Ontario
or he was so innocent that he felt that in all
good time this would be worked out. The
federal policy was rigid — in my view too
108
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
rigid — but still was expressed two years ago
and there is no indication of any change as
far as I can see, although I have not been
present at the negotiations undertaken by the
Treasurer and the Premier in recent weeks.
I hope and I trust that I will be able to
hear some of these negotiations as they take
place in the next two months. And I would
say to you, sir, that I received a very kind
letter from the Prime Minister of Ontario
this morning saying that he would do his
best to see that at least I and other repre-
sentatives of the Opposition would be able to
attend the constitutional conference. But the
government sitting opposite here has reduced
itself to a search for threats that can be used
to force from the government of Canada
further fiscal equivalents without additional
responsibility.
First, there is the comment that maybe we
would tax fuel for Air Canada. You may
remember when the tax was imposed last
year, we on this side felt that it was too small
and it could, in fact, become a source of rev-
enue more than it had at that time been
considered.
The other threat, the one that I felt was
quite unconscionable, was that the adminis-
tration, the Premier of Ontario, was prepared
to opt out of constitutional negotiations
unless, in fact, fiscal matters were settled
more to his liking. I do not believe that the
constitution of our country should come up
for that sort of negotiation. I believe that
Ontario has taken the lead in years gone by—
and it was just a year ago now that the Con-
federation of Tomorrow Conference was being
held— and surely it is a very crass and unac-
ceptable approach to fiscal negotiations that
either the Premier or his white-lipped and
trembling friend, the Treasurer, who has just
joined us, would stoop to the level of trying
to extract from the government of Canada
any sort of an agreement on that basis. Surely
it is very difficult for us on this side to sup-
port the government if they are going to take
that sort of a stand; it is simply intolerable,
their position has been unnecessarily rigid and
they have been unable to accept the responsi-
bility which is surely theirs.
I do not want to take time on this occasion
to list for you, sir, the areas where cost-
cutting should really be a factor. We believe
that the Centennial museum is one of those
areas which has grown through the unneces-
sarily enthusiastic approach of the Minister of
Education and the Minister of Tourism (Mr.
Auld). It has gestated well beyond the Cen-
tennial year into 1969 and 1970, and swelled
well beyond its original concept in price to
something in excess of $30 million.
In an effort to economize last year the
Treasurer announced with fanfare a central-
ized purchasing agency and this was rigor-
ously criticized by the Financial Post a few
weeks ago in which they went so far as to say
the centralized purchaser was nothing but a
straw man because he was not being sup-
ported by either the Treasurer or the other
departments of government. These are areas
of concern that do not fit in with the state-
ment made by the Treasurer— at least we
assume it was written by the Treasurer—
when he promised renewed emphasis on effi-
ciency and economy in every branch and
agency of the Ontario government. After 25
years of Tory government, we would expect
that to be a part of his everyday responsibility
and nothing that he is going to take on just
as a special occasion.
Mr. Speaker, there are areas in which
surely the government must take specific
action and I would like, sir, to list for you
those areas which we as Liberals would sup-
port. First, there must be a full external
assessment of provincial spending programmes
to eliminate waste. Where practical, direct
cost-cutting programmes can be inaugurated.
We will support them, but the elimination of
waste is something that we do not feel this
government has undertaken in any practical
and forthright way. We would say, Mr.
Speaker, that the example of an external
examination can be found in the records of
your own administration.
It was in 1956 that the former Premier,
Leslie Frost, began to be fearful of the direc-
tion in which the open-ended programmes
that he and his predecessors had begun and
which have been added to by the present
administration were taking the province of
Ontario. Those were buoyant times, and being
the far-sighted gentleman that he was on
occasion, he went down into the financial
community of Toronto and there found a per-
son who in his view and the view of the
former Provincial Treasurer, the member for
Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Allan), was best
equipped to survey objectively the business of
government and give the recommendations
which might make it operate more efficiently.
Downtown he found Walter Gordon who was
then a non-political activist, who had the cre-
dentials that would permit such a survey and
review.
The Gordon report still stands on the desk
in my office and it is interesting to read
excerpts from it where he indicates ways in
NOVEMBER 25, 1968
109
which the efficiency of government could be
improved. I know that book sat on die shelves
of the government opposite for many years
without the implementation of any significant
part of these recommendations. But the time
has surely come when a similar external re-
view is required. After all, since 1962 we
have had a Royal commission on taxation,
and the select committee, chaired by the new
Minister of Revenue, which reported just a
few weeks ago.
Both of these had, as the emphasis to their
terms of reference, means of increasing the
ta\ income of the province. There was no
survey of the programmes or the efficiency of
government and we on this side are tired of
hearing the Ministers one by one say, "Trust
us, we will do the best that can be done."
I believe that the Treasurer should welcome
this external survey and assessment, not only
of our programmes but of the business of
government. I believe it is in this area that
cuts can be made, that efficiencies can be
achieved which the entrenched government
opposite is unwilling to undertake. After all,
the programmes that would have to be cut
;>re their own pet projects. The means of
d( tog business are those which have evolved
down through the years and they cannot re-
member a time when they were done any
other way. But after 25 years of Tory patron-
age they are deeply entrenched in each com-
munity with those people who are their
supporters and who do not want any chinge
in the business of government. That is why
an external assessment must be made and why
the only real solution will be the defeat of
this government and its replacement by a
Liberal one.
Now, if the first point is a full external as-
sessment of provincial spending programmes,
the second one must be a reversal of the
present rejection of an estimates committee
of the Legislature. Such a committee is
absolutely necessary to allow the people's
elected representatives a more realistic op-
portunity to examine the 1969-1970 Budget.
It is incredible to me that we are not sup-
ported in this project by the other Opposi-
tion party. The leader of the NDP, seeing
hidden difficulties, looks into the future and
is afraid that an estimates committee might
be tied into a package deal with a reduction
of the rights of the members of this House.
I can assure you, sir, that we in Opposi-
tion will never countenance a reduction of
the free right to debate these matters in the
Legislature. We put forward the estimates
committee as a sincere alternative, a pro-
posal, which would give us an opportunity
to question those people who advise the
Ministers in just the way that the leader of
the NDP described it himself, with this par-
ticular amendment to the committee motion
which was before the House two or three
days ago. This is the sort of approach that
surely the Opposition should undertake to-
gether. There is no room for a narrow parti-
san approach which has been characteristic
of the NDP approach in these matters in
the past.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, you will
recall that our amendment last year under-
took to set up a committee to examine the
rules of the House, and the supporters of
the NDP leader have been most vocal, and
very able, in indicating that an examination
of these rules was necessary, but under those
circumstances they did not support us again.
Believe me, sir, I do not associate myself
with the kind of confrontation politics that
the NDP are advocating. Those politics are
simply grandstand politics. If you think of
what they have done in the last few days;
of the 20 seats empty during the question
period of the House last Thursday, when
they went down to walk on the picket line
of Proctor-Silex.
Now I would say to you sir, that this is
a matter of some concern, because this par-
ticular strike has been on since July 17. I
remember it well. It happened on my birth-
day. I sat there reading the newspaper over
breakfast. The report came through about
Proctor-Silex, and it was not until— what date
—November 23-24 that the House was greeted
by the empty seats on the NDP side, now
if that is not grandstanding, what is?
A more responsible approach I would say
is the one that was taken by the official
Opposition. We sent our representatives
down to a union meeting. The member for
Scarborough East (Mr. T. Reid) represented
the Liberal Party at that meeting. He was
in contact with labour leaders. Leaders of
the community. He came back with a report
that led us as Liberals to support the strik-
ers in this particular negotiation. There is
no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the way it was
undertaken by the NDP, is an indication of
the scare that was thrown into that leader,
by the threat to his leadership, by the hon.
member for Riverdale (Mr. J. Renwick).
When this confrontation, Mr. Speaker,
first came to light I thought at once that it
was a put-up job. The NDP was sitting
around the back room saying "what are we
going to do to make our annual meeting go".
110
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
"We are going to have it in a roller rink
somewhere up in Kitchener, and have a little
excitement."
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Brant-
ford has a point of order.
Mr. M. Makarchuk (Brantford): The leader
of the Opposition is, Mr. Speaker, misleading
the House. The representative from the
Liberal Party was not at that meeting.
Mr. Nixon: Now Mr. Speaker, I want to
make it clear that the representative of the
Liberal Party went down to the strike situa-
tion, questioned those on the union side who
had their information put before us, and he
has reported that to the caucus. We have
taken a stand on that particular matter, it
is a caucus and a public stand, Mr. Speaker,
in which we support the strikers in their
fight to get a fair deal from Proctor-Silex—
Since the deputy leader of the NDP has
interjected, I would say that the interesting
thing is that I thought his challenge was a
put-up job, but somehow went around the
bend. He had delusions of grandeur. He
thought, maybe this is a real chance to take
over the party, because really, his state-
ments during the campaign were most sur-
prising indeed. Some of them have been
read into the record already. He accused
that the big-wigs of organized labour had
been told that they had to support Donald
otherwise the party was going to fall on
evil days. The hon. leader of the NDP re-
plied to this by saying it was an outright lie.
I do not know whether he was responding to
the member for Brantford (Mr. Makarchuk),
or the member for Riverdale (Mr. J. Ren-
wick), but one of those, and then-
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): And then he
called him "Hitler". Yes. The leader called
his deputy "Hider".
Mr. Nixon: I think the significant state-
ment, Mr. Speaker, was that he called him
"Messiah". I do not know which he intended
to be worse.
Mr. Speaker, I think the significance was
up there in the intense excitement and
drama of the roller rink in Kitchener. The
deputy leader came to the microphone and
said the choice was with the delegates, they
would take one fork in the road towards a
confrontation politics and success at the polls
in 1971, because only he had the aura of
victory, or they could take the other fork
which led to the dissolution of the party,
and its foundering on the rocks of— what
was the word— ordinariness I think— and this
was the choice that the NDP took. They took
the fork that went with Donald MacDonald.
The man who cannot win. And that is why
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the
NDP was frightened out of his sense of
responsibility. He is prepared to leave those
seats vacant, and I can say to you sir, that
members of the Liberal Party will occupy
not only those, but many others when we
form the government in 1971—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Nixon: So to get back to point num-
ber two, Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that
the NDP would not support the official Oppo-
sition in our proper request, that we have
a committee on estimates, and I would say
that the Premier himself must surely be
considering this alternative.
Third: There must be an assumption of
full provincial responsibility for the present
federal-provincial programmes of hospitaliza-
tion, welfare and health which would be
balanced by a further 17 per cent tax abate-
ment from Ottawa together with safeguards
against increasing costs. The Premier himself
has said he wants to control Ontario's prior-
ities, putting these responsibilities within our
jurisdiction would allow Ontario to control
its expansion effectively over a wide spectrum
of programmes. Now this too is an offer that
was made two years ago, and if I read the
quotes from the Treasurer's speech correctly,
surely we must be considering this very care-
fully.
I feel that die Minister of Finance has gone
out of his way to re-assure provincial juris-
diction. Not only will there be a transference
of the 17 per cent but there will be an ac-
companying flexibility in the grant which
will see to it that the province cannot be
out of pocket over a reasonable period of
time, probably five years, in assuming the
full control of this programme. T,he only
thing that occurs to me that may be a bit of
Yankee trading on one side or the other, is
that our medical costs are going to grow tre-
mendously as we see fair rates of pay ex-
tended to those people working in the medical
field. I am not at this time talking particularly
about the medical doctors who seem to still
be able to unilaterally impose their decisions
on the Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond), and
this government. I am talking about those
people working in Ontario Hospitals and hos-
pital facilities across the province, whose
salary levels, I submit, are far below what
they will have to be within three to five years.
It is this area, where the costs of this
particular programme are to grow tremen-
NOVEMBER 25, 1968
111
clously and I believe they must grow tre-
mendously. We cannot continue to have
trained people working for an unfair salary,
unfair wage in this province.
We have to realize there is a further 17
per cent transference with accompanying
responsibilities in these matters to the 28 per
cent transference that we already have. Then
we will be approaching one half of the— that
is, we will be approaching 50 per cent in our
share of the income tax abatement from the
federal level.
Fourth, there must be an effective workable
centralized purchasing policy for the entire
Ontario government operation with forced
co-operation from all departments. I do not
want to say much more about that, we de-
bated it for three years. All I can say is
that the Treasurer's implementation of this
programme so far has been a sham, that the
utilization of centralized purchasing has been
a waste of his time in the way he has
approached this. It simply has to be imposed
on his colleagues in the Cabinet so that they
will tear apart their purchasing empires and
we can accomplish the savings that have
been predicted by all who have studied the
matter.
Fifth: There must be negotiations with
Ottawa to improve our situation particularly
in sharing the recently announced two per
cent social development tax. I have already
indicated that my calculation would indicate
that this would give an additional $40 mil-
lion. The Treasurer might comment on that
himself— $40 million— if it were put on as an
ordinary part of the income tax scale and
abated at the 28 per cent level. I think that
the abatement is a bit bigger than 28 per
cent since the change is in Manitoba and
Quebec.
Sixth: Ontario should negotiate the right
to influence the broadening of the federal
income tax base. The establishment of a more
progressive system as outlined in the Carter
report is just as much Ontario's responsibility
as it is that of the federal government and
this must be made abundantly clear to
Ottawa.
I want to say a word about that. The
rigidities in the negotiations exist on both
sides. The government of the province finds
itself completely hamstrung by the growth of
its programmes and the lack of growth, of
comparable growth, in our income.
But the rigidity that we take in the provin-
cial government— in saying— that the only an-
swer is for a larger abatement is inadmissible,
it is inadmissible!
On the other hand, the rigidity in Ottawa,
which says that 28 per cent is the end of
the line, and that the government in Ottawa
must retain 100 per cent control of the tax
base, is equally too rigid.
If we are going to have access in the near
future to at least 50 per cent of the income
taxes collected in this province, then I believe
this must carry with it a similar responsi-
bility, and in fact a right, to negotiate what
that tax base would be. We have the right
now to impose any tax base we choose, but
I would agree with those who say that
Ontario cannot stand a second level of in-
come taxation. We do not want the bureau-
cracy that this would entail. We can work
out, on a co-operative basis surely, the sort
of approach which would put a common tax
base for the collection of these income taxes
from our province as our share in the abate-
ment grows along the lines that I have sug-
gested.
Seventh: Regardless of the success attend-
ing the base-sharing dialogue, Ontario must
immediately accept the $160 million federal
rebate available for Medicare.
I do not think there is any doubt that
those people who accuse the Minister of
Finance in Ottawa of levying a Medicare
premium tax are very close to the truth,
that the two per cent surtax is designed to
cover the expected federal responsibilities for
the payment of half of the cost of federal
medical insurance.
Now this money is being taxed from
Ontario and we have heard the objection
stated by the government opposite for many
years. It is not sufficient to say that it is
the law of the land, although I would say
that it should soon be accepted by those who
have the responsibility in Ontario that in
fact there will be no changes to this, and
that before July 1 next year, it is incumbent
on us to accept our share of this programme
and see that Medicare becomes a reality in
the province of Ontario.
The statement by the Prime Minister of
Canada some weeks ago, that five years from
now there would be a renegotiation of the
financing of this plan, deeply shocked and
surprised the Treasurer who sits opposite.
Whether or not he is unaware of the wording
in the bill that calls for a five-year reassess-
ment I do not know, but I am convinced, sir,
that the very purpose of this reassessment is
so that as these programmes, such as Medi-
care, become an established and accepted
fact, that it is possible for the government of
Canada, with the abatement of the equivalent
112
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
points of the tax system, to move out of
shared responsibility and on to new areas
which are needed for the unification of
Canada and the provision of equality of
opportunity.
Actually what this will do, Mr. Speaker,
is once again leave us with the priorities in
our own hands which we can assess as we
see fit. The big problem is one that is ex-
pressed so frequently from the other side,
and that is that federal initiative in fact,
removes from the province of Ontario and
any other provinces the right to opt out of
these programmes. I would say we do not
have the right to opt out of Medicare. We
must get into it. The fiscal requirements are
there. This is not the reason I believe we
should, but it is a fact that faces the Treas-
urer and there is no doubt in my mind that
Ontario will be a part of federal Medicare
with the $160 million that this would entail
this year, before the end of the fiscal year.
I sincerely hope that this is a part of our
programme. The government, by continuing
to reject Medicare, is neglecting possible
income tax sources which already exist, be-
cause it would rather forego them, appar-
ently, than appear to lose face to the federal
government. But it has a more urgent obli-
gation and that is to the people of our prov-
ince. At the same time the government
cannot face the fact that the dream is over,
and in our own words the nightmare has
begun. It cannot bring itself to slice into its
entrenched- costs. It cannot accept the idea
of a true day of fiscal reckoning. Now I think
back to a speech made on the Budget of 1962
by the former member for Bruce, Ross
Whicher, now member of Parliament, in
which he extrapolated the spending pro-
grammes for the then Treasurer, the member
for Haldimand-Norfolk. There were a lot of
catcalls on that day as well, when it was
indicated that the Budget critic for the official
Opposition had been exaggerating the posi-
tion. And yet, if you were to look up the
speech, you would find his predictions on the
cost of education, our highways programmes,
the programmes for economic development
of the province, and some programmes that
were not even thought of at that time, have
far exceeded even Mr. Whicher's pessimistic
predictions. We find ourselves in a fiscal
nightmare of the government's own making.
It is no longer acceptable that the blame
be put on another jurisdiction. The responsi-
bility rests here, and we in this House must
take the steps to correct it. We cannot pos-
sibly go through this next session without the
far-reaching changes that the Treasurer him-
self has said will be needed unless some
great uncle in another jurisdiction is pre-
pared to rebate an extra $300 million. It
does not appear that this money is going to
be forthcoming. The responsibility is here.
The decision is here. We in Ontario must
set our own House in order.
Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago we were
discussing the matter of the strike in Picton.
Among the many reports received by the
government and the members of the Legis-
lature over the past few months, the Rand
report might have been the most valuable.
We believe that labour legislation in Ontario
has been inadequate and backward. The
Tilco Plastics strike, which was the event that
triggered the naming of the Royal commission
and the retention by the government of the
ex-parte injunction in labour disputes, followed
more recently by the incredible situation at
Picton and the strike at the Peterborough
Examiner, continue to point up the inade-
quate and archaic approach that government
policy has taken in Ontario for 25 years.
Because of this, we look forward to Mr.
Rand's report eagerly. No doubt some of his
recommendations may find application, but
the general and specific approach of Mr.
Rand is completely unacceptable in Ontario.
This is an age of dwindling freedoms; yet
the report of this distinguished jurist has a
strange ring of authoritarianism about it.
What I want to do today is underline that
Mr. Justice Rand's preoccupation with im-
posing settlements upon union and manage-
ment is as much at variance with Liberal
philosophy as it is in practice, unworkable.
In our view, settlements cannot be imposed
or they will not endure. They must be nego-
tiated by the parties concerned with as little
outside interference as possible and then only
in those rare conditions of last resort when
the total public interest becomes paramount.
The tribunal, the heart of the recommenda-
tions of the report, is a wrong and, I would
say, illiberal concept. It epitomizes the legal-
istic that it is possible and desirable to impose
settlements. To implement this recommenda-
tion would be an undesirable delegation of
the powers which must be retained by this
Legislature. Furthermore, it would bring the
law into widespread disrespect.
Our view is that Justice Rand has under-
rated the quality and effectiveness of the
Ontario Labour Relations Board, whose ap-
proach has been to try to create an atmos-
phere in which agreement might most easily
be reached. Its tripartite nature makes its
decisions more palatable and generally ac-
NOVEMBER 25, 1968
113
ceptable than those of a Rand tribunal could
ever be.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board should
remain the main regulating body in the labour
field. The board, however, can be upgraded
with more modern procedures and a new
approach to expressing the public interest in
these matters. There will always be emer-
gency situations from time to time, that re-
quire the authority of this Legislature to
settle in the public interest. This power must
be guarded carefully and used only as a last
resort when the public welfare obviously must
be considered ahead of normal labour-man-
agement affairs. Strikes are, of course, seri-
ously expensive to the public and to all con-
cerned, but that is part of the price we pay
for living in a free society, and the alternative
would be much worse. On page 7 of the re-
port, Mr. Justice Rand ends his summary by
stating:
That is the background against which
labour relations of today must be viewed
and procedures adopted for their adjust-
ment to societies of order.
Mr. Speaker, as Liberals, we have two higher
priorities than that of order. These are
respectively freedom and justice. Freedom
must come first because, without it, justice
becomes a mockery, and while order is a
desirable attribute of a smoothly functioning
society, it must always be subservient to free-
dom and justice which transcends order on
the scale of human values. We have all too
often seen that one can have perfect order in
the total absence of humanity. When freedom
exists, however, humanity is always present,
regardless of the material conditions.
This, then, in the most general terms, is the
tone of our objection to the Rand report. I
do not like to say that we opt for the status
quo because that is not so. We believe that
the labour relations board can be improved
and there is never a session goes by but spe-
cific recommendations, associated with pro-
cedures of the labour relations board and their
improvement, are put before the House and
the Minister of Labour by our critic on this
side and by those knowledgeable in these
matters. The people opposite are always quick
to say that I am an apologist for the govern-
ment of Canada, and yet I believe that the
federal Minister of Labour, Mr. Mackasey,
has been very useful to the situation across
Canada in his statements when he says that
free negotiations between labour and manage-
ment must continue to be the essence of these
matters as we approach the end of this par-
ticular century with the changes that are a
part of it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want now to move to
another matter of provincial concern and
bring to your attention that a few days ago
we had read by the Clerk a petition from the
city of Ottawa asking for permissive legisla-
tion pertaining to rent control. Even before
the signing of the petitions, however, indica-
tions of crisis were clearly evident to all who
chose to see. Rent increases triggered by the
bumbling way in which the basic shelter
exemption was accepted as an election gambit
and has since been paid out, have been wide-
spread and unreasonable.
They have exposed avarice, particularly in
Toronto, where very few of the 40 per cent
of the residents who are tenants have escaped
chilling and inflationary hikes in their accom-
modation costs. Rent increases have caused
people to look for cheaper accommodation
rather than their former goal of moving out of
the high rise apartments and finding a home
for themselves and their families. The tradi-
tional dream has gone by the board. It has
passed out of reach of a majority of urban
population because of the fantastic price in-
creases of lots and houses alike. With vacancy
rates at less than 2 per cent for all types of
rental accommodation in our major cities,
there is no longer a free market in housing.
This is the extent of the crisis today.
The government has no plans to solve this
problem, that are effective. The Malvern site
has laid idle for years and is now progressing
at a snail's pace towards development. I can
well remember the first announcement in
1954, following at almost indecent intervals—
I believe the fifth or sixth by the present Min-
ister who is responsible for housing. The de-
cision to assemble land in the Waterloo area
and the manner of its announcement betrayed
a lack of overall planning that bodes ill for
the success of this project also.
I want to stop at that point in my written
comment and just say that it does seem
strange that funds which are in such short
supply at the present time, would have been
funnelled into the programme at Waterloo.
It is strange as well that these funds, paid
75 per cent at the federal level, have been put
into a kind of land bank, the future of which
is very much in doubt. The purchase of the
land was entered into without any reference
to local planning authorities and it has all the
earmarks of those strange decisions that are
at times entered into by the government when
they have to get some of their friends off the
hook. It appears to me that this large area of
114
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
land in the Waterloo area is going to lie idle
for many years until, I suppose, there is some
specific need, or need for a press release on
the part of the Minister. It is a strange mat-
ter, indeed, that when housing and serviced
lots— more public housing in the big areas
particularly is so desperately needed— the
Minister would choose this as one of his top
priorities in the expenditure of these public
funds.
The selling of HOME lots at a profit rather
than at current cost after servicing, betrays a
real road block to this programme which is
that the maintenance of a profitable private
market in real estate is considered more im-
portant than the ready provision of homes.
The government has neglected municipal tax
reform and it is this more than any other
factor that has distorted the orderly develop-
ment of the residential communities in our
municipalities. The Smith committee began
its work in 1962, but it is now evident that
1968 will pass before any action is taken on
the report or the select committee's work on
tax reform.
No doubt the Minister himself, like most
of us in the House, has talked to those
municipal officials in urban areas and in
rural areas who have indicated that the cost
of education is the reason that makes most
of them cut their regulations in such a way
that the advancement of urban development
has been curtailed. It is this area of tax
reform that is pressing more than any other.
We have also had broad hints that the
Treasurer's lack of success in Ottawa will
mean that he will not relieve the munici-
palities of the cost of education even to the
60 per cent level recommended by Smith.
The uncontrolled costs of education, costs
which have hitherto been treated as one lump
sum instead of 30 or 40 different priorities,
have been loaded on to the municipalities
and on to the regressive property tax struc-
ture paralyzing orderly growth and develop-
ment and creating such ridiculous minimum
assessment requirements for homes as the $30
thousand minimum now applying in Scar-
borough and the insistence on two-car garages
even when people live directly on the GO
line. This is what happens when the wrong
kind of tax source is burdened with the
costs of education.
Finally it is clear to all that the govern-
ment has been totally remiss in its encourage-
ment of public housing where this is needed.
This inadequacy of housing for those who
need it most reflects once more the failure
of this government to get its priorities in
order. Ontario citizens in 1968 do not have
access to a freely operating housing market
subject to the checks and balances of supply
and demand. Todaj' Ontario has a totally
artificial market in which the government by
its negligence and its irresponsibilities in the
matter of priorities, has already interfered
ineffectually. The effect of that existing inter-
ference by the provincial government has
been to distort the market completely. The
supply of homes has been cut off because it
has proved uneconomic to build in a rational
manner.
The demand has soared, particularly in cer-
tain areas, because the urban magnet has
changed the population distribution and
created unreasonable pressures on demand.
It is clear that, while many rural areas are
not experiencing a serious housing problem,
the crisis is of nightmare proportions in
Toronto, in Ottawa which has brought for-
ward a petition for a permissive rent control
statute, in Hamilton and many other densely
populated centres across the province.
In these circumstances, we recognize that
emergency action is now necessary to meet
the extraordinary situation that has arisen
through the negligence of this government;
through its not providing services to relieve
existing land prices; through not providing
sufficient commuter rapid transit to take the
pressure away from the urban car; through
not balancing industrial and residential assess-
ment and through causing rental inflation
through the basic shelter exemption method.
Our answer to the problem is to approach
the immediate crisis on a localized basis. We
believe the remedy lies with the munici-
palities themselves and that this Legislature
can effect short-term enabling legislation to
ease the present problem. We believe that if
all the factors distorting the market are dealt
with as they should be, then the immediate
urgency may have diminished within a three-
year period. We therefore propose permissive
and localized rent control legislation with a
two-year life span, subject to renewal only
if the government has failed to come up with
the answers that will restore the market to its
former free state.
In these circumstances, any move by this
government to extend a life of such legisla-
tion, will be a clear admission of its failure
to deal with the situation on a longer range
basis in the interim. As Liberals, we look
forward to the day when the government-
initiated circumstances in which a rent control
measure has become necessary will be coun-
teracted. We find this proposal unpalatable
NOVEMBER 25, 1968
115
and we have not entered into it lightly, but
only after the most careful caucus delibera-
tion. We see it as a stop-gap measure and
not as a Liberal idea but to many of us it
is the only answer to the situation that we
now find. The step must be taken now be-
cause there is no alternative after what the
government has failed to do. Our aim, as
always, is for a free market in shelter and
the removal of all the factors that prevent
such a market from operating for the benefit
of all.
We therefore propose to set specifically:
number one, rent control legislation as a
stop-gap to meet the crisis in certain areas.
The measures must be permissive, the deci-
sion to seek powers coming from the affected
municipalities themselves. The legislation will
feature one-year renewal of its local applica-
tion and renewal of the measure in each
locality will be tied to vacancy rate and rent
index limits.
Second, a tenant's bill of rights. This
measure is detailed on the order paper
already in the name of the deputy leader of
the Liberal Party, the hon. member for
Downsview. It would include provision for
a standard form of lease. It would limit
advanced rent payments to two months
ahead. It would outlaw security deposits
against damage completely. It would make
illegal those clauses in contracts by which
a tenant waives any or all of his legal rights
and to that I might add, the right to a com-
plete contract prior to signature. Clauses
typed in after the signing would be invalid.
It would enact and enforce safety regulations
and health laws to protect tenants. The day
of erratic and uninspected elevators and other
devices being put into service would end.
The day of choked refuse disposal chutes
polluting the air with odour and disease
would be brought to a conclusion by a force-
ful clause in the new Act.
It would outlaw exclusive agreements be-
tween the landlord and suppliers of goods
and services, as being an infringement of a
tenant's basic right to free access. It would
forbid a landlord to levy extra charges on
tenants unless these have been specifically
contracted for, to begin with, and it would
establish a tenants' appeal board to hear com-
plaints against the injustices that even then
would remain in the unreal and unconscion-
able circumstances of the distorted shelter
market existing in our cities today.
Number three, Liberals see a tenants' bill
of rights as the transition from the immediate
and emergency rent control phase to a more
logical and effective long-term solution to
the housing problem. The cornerstone of this
approach must be municipal tax reform, as I
have already said. We are still convinced
that the municipalities must be relieved of
their education cost burden to the extent of
80 per cent of the local level. Only in this
way will balance, growth and development,
and a proper provision for needed services,
emerge. Alongside this must come a source
of second mortgage money from the prov-
ince to supplement NHA first mortgages. Even
at present high prices, many people are ready
to become home owners and are prepared
and able to carry the monthly payments. It
is the initial deposit, enormous because of the
lack of an adequate second mortgage, that
keeps many enterprising and would-be home
owners out of the rental market or, I should
say, on the rental market.
Every tenant who becomes a home owner
takes some pressure off the overheated rental
market and it helps bring supply and demand
into line. We would see to it that otherwise
good risks were not prevented from becom-
ing home owners merely by not being able
to accumulate the $4,000 or $5,000 now
needed to move into a house of their own.
This would be a programme involving invest-
ment in the people of our province. It is a
programme that has been needed for many
years.
Number five, there must be an overall plan
for the land use and economic development
of Ontario. Present policy loses its effective-
ness when a tenant is placed in the priorities
that such a plan must dictate for the selec-
tion of urban growth points, the preserva-
tion of our best agricultural resources and
the expansion of recreation facilities all
correlated by rapid transit highways and
services.
And lastly, in a programme to meet the
housing difficulties on a long range basis, we
believe that the Ontario Water Resources
Commission is ready for far reaching reform.
This would be necessary in order to create
one of the effective means of implementing
the overall provincial plan that I have been
urging on the administration.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to leave the
recommendation for an overall plan without
one or two further remarks. We have been
treated by the Minister of Trade and Devel-
opment for some years to the expectation
that the economic regions of the province
would have such a detailed plan of their
own areas: their prospects, economic and
otherwise available for a general provincial
plan. He has had this responsibility taken
116
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
from him and it now resides in The Depart-
ment of the Treasury. Now we are still
awaiting at least some glimmer of the
regional development plan that could, in fact,
be upgraded so that it would be a plan
for the province.
I live in a rural area of the province and
I know that the responsibilities that local
governments, reeves and mayors take upon
themselves in order to carry out the planning
requirements placed on their shoulders by
The Department of Municipal Affairs which
are very heavy and politically onerous. When
decisions are made to restrict the free whole
rights of any land owner, that land owner
turns sometimes rather vehemently on those
elected officials or those elected people who
are prepared to tamper with these rights in
the interest of the greater good of the com-
munity.
This is what has been happening in Ontario
for some years and there are still many
areas which have not yet acceded to the
pressure placed upon them by The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs to bring about
such a plan. In the interim, the province of
Ontario has gone scot free in accepting its
share of these tough political decisions.
There has been no approach towards setting
some delineations to the large and growing
metropolitan areas, to stop them staining out
over the rural areas of the province without
any plan or modern consideration. A good
case in point is the decision made by Ontario
Hydro to build one of the largest thermal
plants in the world on the shores of Lake
Erie and right beside this enormous centre of
power, the Steel Company of Canada has
not optioned, but bought, 7,000 acres for a
new industrial development. The province
has had little or no effect on the general plan
of the greater community around that par-
ticular centre which must obviously in the
next 20 years, become a new city in the
province.
The two counties involved, Haldimand and
Norfolk have embarked on joint planning
responsibilities. But this is not enough. There
are many towns outside those counties them-
selves which expect to share in the expansion.
They expect to have new industrial and
urban subdivisions but there has been no
plan by the economic council of the area nor
by the government of Ontario to assist them
in this matter.
The time has come surely, when the de-
cisions must be made for the major growing
areas of the province, at least on the general
areas for growth where the new transit lines
will be constructed and just what the mean-
ing will be for our citizens of the next 20
years. It is not enough for any Minister of
the Crown to turn to what has been done in
the past. I think this last spring we were
treated with much fanfare to the report of
the MTARTS study which after I believe
four years and $2 million presented four
alternatives of what the community around
Toronto might be in the future.
They were presented to the municipal offi-
cials as four alternatives, none of them with a
price tag, just the expectation that any one
of them would be terribly expensive. But
surely these particular suggestions and alter-
natives have to be considered by the govern-
ment of Ontario before they are considered
by any individual municipality or growing
economic area.
It is the decision of this administration to
improve the quality of life— a phrase that the
Premier uses more and more frequently— in
the years that remain in this century. It is
only through the implementation of a plan of
this type that we can, in fact, look for any
effective means of improvement of this qual-
ity of life that all of us are concerned with.
Now I stated as the last point in the gen-
eral development of solving the housing diffi-
culty, a new approach to the responsibilities
of the Ontario Water Resources Commission.
I want to deal with that in some detail.
The water resources commission has two
major functions that are not always com-
patible. The first, as the major water pollu-
tion control agency, gives it great and
growing powers to disallow development in
communities with inadequate facilities and,
in fact, to close industry and stop develop-
ment.
An example of this last is the closing of the
Canada Glue plant in Brantford with the
consequent laying off of 75 men; most of
them over the age of 50, making readjust-
ment particularly difficult. Now we support
antipollution regulations with teeth in them,
but in this case if the OWRC had had a sub-
sidized loan fund, so that $250,000— that is
all, $250,000-had been available to the com-
pany, the necessary antipollution measures
could have been implemented and the indus-
try retained.
A word of further explanation: This is a
fairly old company, that dumps its refuse
into the Grand River, and the refuse from
an operation of this type is a particularly
disagreeable source of pollution. There have
been many complaints from the citizens
locally and the OWRC finally— after several
warnings — took the action — and it was a
NOVEMBER 25, 1968
117
proper action under their present terms of
reference — to close down the plant since the
pollution was not abated and the company
was not prepared to undertake this abate-
ment.
I think it is interesting to note that the
company had been bought out— some years
ago— by American interests, and the head
office indicated that they were quite pre-
pared to do the manufacturing operations in
other localities and ship the finished product
into Ontario. This of course brings forward
many arguments about decisions made out-
side of our own boundaries that affect us so
greatly and on a day-to-day basis.
But the difficult part is this, that for
$250,000, we are told, that the antipollution
measures could have been effected. Yet the
Ontario Water Resources Commission does
not have access to such a fund to accomplish
this particular procedure in such a way that
the company could be forced to do that
rather than close down under these circum-
stances.
I believe it is the height of folly to hand
out grants by one department of $500,000
under the equalization of industrial oppor-
tunity programmes to bolster employment
with one hand, while a short-sighted ap-
proach to OWRC negates the first effort.
All of the people in any community bene-
fit from antipollution regulations, so that
justification for such loans is apparent.
The second major responsibility of OWRC
is to provide the water and sewage facilities
for municipalities where the commission itself
decides they are needed. A case in point, and
I would like to dwell on it for a moment, is
that of St. Thomas where the commission
decided in 1966 that the city should accept
water from a commission pipeline for 50
cents per thousand gallons, even though St.
Thomas had an adequate system delivering
water at 10 cents per thousand gallons with
proved resources to cope for expansion into
the foreseeable future.
The OWRC decision was prompted by
their commitment to provide pipeline water
to the new Ford plant near St. Thomas and
their effort to spread the cost over the nearest
population centre. Now in order to force the
city to accept an obviously bad deal the
water resources commission stopped approv-
ing subdivision plans in St. Thomas in March
1967. This freeze on development was based
on the commission's statement that the city
was grossly polluting nearby Kettle Creek.
St. Thomas has been negotiating since that
time with the commission and is approaching
a settlement in which the freeze on develop-
ment is like a gun to its head. This freeze
was lifted in October 1968— about a month
ago— by a statement by the hon. member for
Wellington-Dufferin (Mr. Root), the vice-
chairman of the commission, even though no
significant change had taken place with the
situation involving Kettle Creek.
This story has significance across Ontario,
because sooner or later all our municipalities
must come under the patronizing direction of
OWRC. There is no doubt that a water grid
and joint sewage facilities for large areas of
southern Ontario must be undertaken in the
next 20 years. This present policy of sticking
the users for the full cost results in impossible
burdens, and we must look for fair solutions.
Surely, it is grossly unfair for a govern-
ment agency to turn on a nearby municipality
which has properly looked after its own
requirements and is even prepared to share
those requirements with a reasonable sur-
rounding territory and population. It is
unfair that the commission should turn on
them to increase their water cost by factors
of three, sometimes five times, in order to
implement the decisions taken by the com-
mission with an entirely different motivation.
It is interesting to note comparable pipe-
line offers in other centres. Compared with
St. Thomas, London— which is not too far
away— has a pipeline, not from Lake Erie,
but from Lake Huron with its terminus at
Arva, near London. Before the pipeline in-
stallation, the London water price was eight
cents per thousand gallons. They calculated
that if they were to build the pipeline them-
selves they could supply their own water
from Lake Huron for something like 15 cents
per thousand, but were persauded by the
Ontario government that, in fact, the govern-
ment should build the pipeline and sell them
the water. So as a result, the deal was that
the price would be very similar, very similar
to that which it would have been if London
had provided their own pipeline. But there
was a clause, of course, associated with
escalating costs, and London gets its water-
not for 15 cents per thousand but 17.6 cents
per thousand, delivered at Arva.
So I believe that this reflects the influence
that the London family compact, all of it,
can have on government deals.
I will be interested, Mr. Speaker, to hear
the justification of the Premier or even the
vice-chairman of the OWRC, who is not
here today, in comparing these deals.
The third one, and I want to bring it to your
attention, was discussed in the Legislature
118
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a few days ago. It involves the city of Sarnia,
represented by my hon. friend and supporter.
I understand that the water system in Sarnia
now produces high quality water for the
citizens of that city on a flat rate of $24 per
year. This has been calculated, with all things
being considered, to be about 12 cents per
thousand gallons— in the same ambit as that
which was provided by St. Thomas and Lon-
don and other centres that I will talk about in
a moment. Sarnia realized that they had to
undertake expansion of this plant. Having a
very effective local administration over a
number of years they were able to contem-
plate a $4 million expansion without going
to the OWRC for any significant assistance
except perhaps for some engineering advice
and they then believed that they could pro-
vide high quality water into the foreseeable
future for their own citizens at $48 per year
or about 20 to 24 cents per thousand. This
had an expansion that was large enough to
permit them to offer treated water to the
surrounding municipalities within reason. It
was at this stage that the Ontario water
resources commission intruded and it is their
plan to enlarge the Sarnia facilities by that
same $4 million that Sarnia itself was pre-
pared to undertake but not to provide water
for citizens of Sarnia at $48 a year but at
$72.96 per year. Now, can you blame the
citizens of Sarnia for objecting to the role
in which they are being placed by a com-
mission of this government, a role which
gives to them the responsibility for paying
for the needed expansion of these facilities
into a significant and large area of western
Ontario?
I come now to the city of Brantford where
there has been as yet no direct confrontation
with OWRC but simply the proposition stated
that Brantford can have access to water from
Lake Erie for 25 cents per thousand gallons
even though they now distribute water at a
base rate of 10 cents per thousand, two and
a half times increase in price. It has been
proposed by the water commission that this
pipeline come up the Grand Valley and allow
those cities, which now use the Grand River
as their primary source of municipal water
supply, to cut into the pipeline and get the
water from Lake Erie rather than directly
from the river. The difference in quality is
not negligible but I would say insignificant. In
any case the water that is provided by Brant-
ford and other municipalities is of a high
enough quality and with the projections that
they will continue to be of effective quality
and supply.
The last case in point is of the town of
Brampton, I believe they call it the Peel-
Brampton pipeline, which reached an agree-
ment in March of 1968 for pipeline water
at 21.5 cents per thousand gallons after an
original price of 31 cents per thousand for
the first month and a half's supply each year.
These pipeline plans can and must be one
of the most important arms for the imple-
mentation of a provincial plan. There is no
doubt if the decision is taken by the govern-
ment of Ontario that certain areas, some of
them now towns in existence, and some of
them now just open country, will be centres
for new municipal growth. The pipelines
which would provide water to those centres
would, in fact, command the growth at that
point and be extremely important in reduc-
ing the cost of serviced lots in those areas. I
believe that the pipelines cannot be totally
charged against the users in a small area if
we are going to be fair in the financing of
such a provincial plan. Decisions to provide
water and sewage facilities will designate
growth points around present urban centres
and reduce cost of serviced land to have real
impact on the cost and availability of hous-
ing. The programme must be financed on a
broad provincial basis if it is going to work.
With these things in mind, Mr. Speaker, I
would like to draw to your attention six
specific points that I believe should form a
basis for new terms of reference for the
water resources commission:
1. Specific long-range plans for a water
pipeline grid over a large area of Ontario
must be drawn up and made public, to
accompany a plan for our province.
2. This overall plan, with accompanying
sewage disposal facilities, where applicable,
should have a tentative time schedule associ-
ated with it.
3. The programme must be the operative
part of a general provincial plan so that the
pipeline and sewage treatment locations will
be the deciding factors in growth points
across the province and greatly reduce costs
for serviced land.
4. The costs in the early part of the servic-
ing programme are too high to charge directly
back to the relatively small number of users.
OWRC must have access to, and use, of the
credit of the province like Ontario Hydro
does to plan and install these facilities on
their own debentures. The financing must be
accepted partially as a direct government
charge so that the needed facilities can be
installed in time to allow many communities
now caught between the Ontario municipal
NOVEMBER 25, 1968
119
lx>ard's fears for their solvency and the
OWRC demand for services before sub-
division approval, to find a way out of the
bureaucratic dilemma.
5. OWRC must be specifically forbidden
to use ancillary powers such as holding up
subdivision approvals as a club to force
agreement from municipalities to accede to
their proposals until the new service policy
is in operation.
6. Subsidized loans to industries for anti-
pollution installations must be a part of a
fair and effective anti-pollution programme.
Mr. Speaker, I have some comments to
make in addition on two other areas that
were mentioned in the Speech from the
Throne but since it is my understanding that
you wish now to proceed to a discussion of a
private member's resolution, with your per-
mission I will move the adjournment of the
debate.
Mr. Nixon moves the adjournment of the
debate.
Motion agreed to.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Clerk of the House: Notice of motion
No. 15 by Mr. Snow.
Resolution: That all government of On-
tario buildings in the province should
be constructed in accordance with the
modular co-ordinated principle.
Mr. J. W. Snow (Halton East): I move,
seconded by the member for Hamilton
Mountain (Mr. J. R. Smith), Resolution No.
15, standing in my name, which has just
l>een read.
Mr. Speaker, in introducing this resolution
I am calling for the adoption by the govern-
ment of Ontario, of the modular dimensional
system for the design and construction of
luiildings which are constructed by the vari-
ous departments of the government of Ontario,
or are subsidized with provincial funds. It is
my desire today, to bring to the attention of
the government, and of the hon. members of
this House, the efficiencies and cost reducing
benefits which can be derived from the adop-
tion of this system, and the institution of the
BEAM programme which has been developed
by The Department of Industry in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, the adoption of the modular
co-ordinated system of building, together with
the implementation of my previous resolution
of March 4, earlier this year, calling for a
standard building code within the province of
Ontario, would provide an excellent base for
improvements in construction efficiency, and
productivity, in the manufacture, design and
use of building equipment, accessories and
materials. Moreover, a climate for the devel-
opment of new technology in construction
would be rendered more favourable as a
result.
Many of the hon. members here today may
ask: what is modular co-ordination? Modular
dimensional standardization or modular co-
ordination, are synonomous terms given to
procedures simplifying the manufacture of
building equipment, accessories, materials,
and the assembly of these for the construction
of buildings.
Such standardization and co-ordination are
effective ways of resolving basic difficulties of
design and application caused by unrelated
dimensions of various building components,
that we have today.
The aim is the development of economical
systems of buildings in which all materials,
components, products and equipment fit
rationally and compatibly together simply and
easily with a minimum of alteration work re-
quired on the job site. Cutting costs of build-
ing construction is the target of this pro-
gramme.
The modular concept has received much
study in many countries because of the press-
ing need for increased productivity and effi-
ciency in building. From the results of these
studies, the dimension of four inches or 10
centimetres in the countries using the metric
system has emerged as a most satisfactory
co-ordinating unit of measurement. The name
given to this unit is the standard building
module.
The main advantages of module dimen-
sional standardization and co-ordination are
as follows:
1. The need for manufacturing and stock-
ing components in more than one standard
range of sizes is eliminated, thus inventories
are reduced and simplified and inventory
costs are reduced.
2. The mass production of building com-
ponents is greatly facilitated resulting in
increased economies of scale of manufacture.
3. Architectural and engineering design is
facilitated, mill production time for archi-
tectural and engineering drawing is shortened
and they are more readily understood. The
costly procedures now related to the produc-
tion and function of shop drawings may be
eliminated. Resulting economies in time and
120
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
cost can enable the design profession to deal
with a greater volume of work, thus extending
their influence further in the building industry.
4. Estimating and pricing of work is easier
and more accurate.
5. Site layout would be simplified.
6. Supervision of construction is more effi-
cient.
7. Workmen understand their assignments
better and work is performed with greater
ease and despatch.
8. Waste of materials is held to a minimum.
9. Job and site cutting of building materials
is reduced entirely in many cases.
10. The orderly and intelligent develop-
ment of the industrialization of the building
processes would be facilitated. The standard
building module of four inches was chosen in
Canada because of its proximity to that em-
ployed in countries using the metric system
of measurement of 10 centimetres being equal
to 3.937 inches. The two dimentions are suffi-
ciently close to permit the use of working
drawings prepared on the four-inch module
in the construction of buildings in countries
under the metric system and vice versa.
Architects favouring the introduction of the
modular system in Canada would like to con-
form to the 10-centimetre measurement but
felt that immediate adoption of the four-inch
unit was preferable to awaiting the inaugura-
tion of the metric system here and in the
United States.
Mr. Speaker, I have referred briefly to the
BEAM programme and I would like to ex-
plain for a moment the background of this
programme. BEAM is made up of the four
letters B-E-A-M, meaning building equipment
accessories and materials. As industry and
government today is more than ever faced
with the vital task of increasing its produc-
tivity and efficiency and recognizing the vital
need for increased efficiency in the industry,
contractors, manufacturers and users of build-
ing equipment accessories and materials and
The Department of Industry have jointly
initiated the BEAM programme to assist in
achieving this goal. Since its inauguration,
considerable progress has been made towards
the attainment of the objectives of this pro-
gramme. The BEAM programme in brief is
as follows: In 1967, with the help and co-
operation of the construction industry, The
Department of Industry introduced this pro-
gramme to assist in achieving greater produc-
tivity and efficiency in the manufacture and
use of equipment.
Five objectives are being developed to
bring about sufficient advances within the
construction industry in Canada. These are
as follows:
1. The establishment of a comprehensive
construction cataloguing and information
system.
2. The adoption of modular dimensional co-
ordination of building components.
3. The industrialization of the building
process.
4. The adoption of uniform building regu-
lations and standards.
5. The establishment of a design awards
programme to improve the design and devel-
opment of construction materials and pro-
cesses.
Three advisory committees were appointed,
made up of prominent Canadians representing
the manufacturing and building industries,
architects and engineers and the trade unions,
and have held meetings on information
systems, modular co-ordination and industrial-
ized building. These committees met on a
regular basis and assisted the department in
defining the objectives and implementing the
programme.
Six conferences were held during 1967, in
Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg,
Edmonton and Vancouver with the objectives
of acquainting policy makers within the indus-
try with the technology and economic advan-
tages of modular dimensioning. Over 1,200
senior executives of Canada's top manu-
facturing, contracting, architecture and
engineering firms were invited to attend these
one-day conferences.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my
congratulations to The Department of Indus-
try on the way that they have developed
this programme. The objectives of the
BEAM programme are of concern to all
members of the industry. These, and several
specific projects have long been advocated
by the Canadian Construction Association
and the Canadian Joint Committee on Con-
struction Materials. At no time in our history
has the effort to increase productivity and
efficiency been of such importance as it is
today. I sincerely hope that all concerned
will participate in this programme and there-
by ensure its success.
Mr. Speaker, I know that many of our
Ontario firms of architects and engineers
have already adopted the modular system of
planning buildings on their own initiative.
This, along with the phasing in of the
modular programme by the federal Depart-
NOVEMBER 25, 1968
121
ment of Public Works has done a great deal
to increase the use of standard modular
building products as of this date. I am also
aware, Mr. Speaker, that our Ontario Depart-
ment of Public Works has been investigating
the advantages of modular construction and
has buildings under construction with the
modular system being utilized at this time.
My belief is that, if all work of all buildings
constructed by the various departments of
this government as well as all work and build-
ings subsidized by the departments were of
modular design, then this large volume of
construction product added to that portion
that is presently using modular co-ordination,
would be a sufficiently large percentage of
the overall construction volume in Ontario
that all the remaining construction volume
would be insufficient to maintain the unco-
ordinated use of the non-modular com-
ponents. In a very short time, the modular
system would be adopted and used for all
construction within our province if not within
Canada.
I urge the government to commence the
drafting of legislation to be enacted no later
than 1970 which will, without infringing
upon the rights of manufacturers to use other
systems of dimensioning as well, require all
buildings constructed by municipal authori-
ties and/or authorities with provincial finan-
cial assistance to utilize the concept of
modular design and modular co-ordinated
materials.
I feel confident, Mr. Speaker, that our
government will give every consideration
to my suggestions here today. I was very
pleased with the response by the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Mc-
Keough) to my previous resolution regard-
ing building codes and know that at this
time the committees of knowledgeable gentle-
men set up by him are making considerable
progress in further investigating the advisa-
bility of a standard building code for Ontario
and ways and means in which this code may
be implemented with the least possible incon-
venience to the building industry and to the
municipalities of Ontario.
I was also very pleased to learn that, since
the presentation of my building code resolu-
tion in this House last March, that a similar
resolution has been introduced by a member
of the Legislature in the province of British
Columbia. Earlier this month, I had corres-
pondence with an hon. member of the
Legislative Assembly of the province of
Quebec, Mr. Art E. Seguin, who is the mem-
ber for the riding of Robert Baldwin. Mr.
Seguin is interested in bringing forward
similar legislation in the province of Quebec.
This, I believe, further indicated the
interest not only in Ontario, but in all of
Canada in updating our building codes and
in streamlining and improving the industry
within our country, which is by far the largest
employer and the largest contributor of our
gross national product.
Mr. Speaker, it has been my pleasure as
a member of this House, and one that has
been proudly connected with the construc-
tion industry for over 20 years, to bring this
resolution forward for the consideration of
our hon. members.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to support the resolution of
the hon. member for Halton ( Mr. Snow ) ,
who sponsored a resolution in the last session
that the government of Ontario should adopt
a national building code. The hon. member
presented this House with a most interesting
debate of great importance concerning every
municipality, property owner and building
contractor in Ontario.
Perhaps one would assume that Resolution
15 is a follow-up on the national building
code in hope that his fellow colleagues would
support and implement a standard building
code in this province of Ontario that would
apply to all municipalities and their needs.
The present Hellyer task force on housing
has been presented with many briefs and
summations asking the adoption of a national
building code.
The resolution under discussion this after-
noon deals with the building of all modern
structures of our day. Modern architecture
often approaches actual engineering in its
mechanical completeness, in its designs, the
means used for achieving beauty, art dimen-
sional forms, the relationship of spaces, vol-
umes, planes and masses.
My colleague, the member for Ottawa
Centre (Mr. MacKenzie), who, I would say,
is more knowledgeable in the design and
materials required in the building trades
than most members of this House, had pre-
sented a lively discussion and debate on this
same subject to The Department of Public
Works on the adoption of modular co ordina-
tion in building materials for the government
of Ontario to endorse the federal programme
known as BEAM in the last session of Par-
liament.
As members of the provincial House we
look upon this building as a masterpiece of
122
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
architecture of the Victorian Gothic design—
the wonderful wood carvings of this Chamber.
But how many tradesmen are there in Ontario
that can be masters in hand wood-carving
today— I think very few. Time is also an
important factor since a building is usually
comprehended in a succession of experiences.
We are living in a world being reshaped by
science, industry and speed. Elements are
employed in architecture, urgent experimen-
tation directed toward answering the needs
of a specific way of life— climate, methods of
labour, available materials and economy of
means, each of the greater styles of today, by
discovery of a new structural method.
In the 20th century new forms of building
have been devised with the use of reinforced
concrete, the development of light material
with reinforced structures, plastics, steel and
other metal alloys, and adhesives. One
should not forget bricks, and cement blocks
for the latter are used in large quantities in
construction of our schools and homes in
Ontario. Today modern architecture has pro-
duced some of the most exciting structures
in history, and the search for adequate, new
structural and artistic formulas. Most archi-
tects prefer a standard dimension that people
will recognize, and one in particular is the
unit dimension known as the four-inch modu-
lar. Why the unit dimension of four? One
can summarize by saying it would take the
guess-work out of designing of buildings. It
would take away many lost man-hours in
revision of drawings in the steps of fabrica-
tion of the material required.
The market in Ontario for building prod-
ucts consists of many components, all of vari-
ation in size. One cannot change the design
or dimensions of a building to suit the needs
of every manufacturer in Ontario or Canada.
Never before has there been a concerted
effort by architects, engineers and contractors
to get manufacturers to supply building
materials with dimensions of the same mul-
tiple, the unit four dimension.
What is needed in Ontario is the adoption
of modular co-ordination in building ma-
terials. The government of Ontario does not
have a planned building programme. They
do not in fact know where they are going.
Tliis government has not kept pace with the
social change, our technology change and a
change to uniformity design and materials.
Different people have different standards for
building materials, such items as bricks,
cement blocks, pre-cast cement, molded
plastics. This creates many difficulties in the
planning and construction of buildings. One
example is our schools that are being con-
structed today. One school board can build
a 10-room school for approximately 40 per
cent less than the adjoining school board for
the same size school. When one looks at
Queen's University and their latest construc-
tion at Queen's, one can see where it blends
in with the old construction. Thus I think we
have harmony, and in many cases this is
lacking in the present government buildings.
Mr. Speaker, commencing early in 1969
the federal Department of Public Works is
going to accept the principle that their build-
ings are fabricated from modular size com-
ponents, and I hope that this will give
enough incentive to bring order to the
chaotic conditions existing. Where is the
leadership in Ontario? Surely this govern-
ment of 25 years in office can provide direc-
tion to initiate a programme in Ontario where
it costs nothing, but will be in the long run a
saving in dollars for the new Minister of
Revenue— by the adoption of this resolution,
"that all government of Ontario buildings in
the province should be constructed in accord-
ance with the modular panel principle."
It would ensure that the projects are in
the realm of reasonableness that would apply
to hospitals, schools, colleges and universities
by encouraging improvements in the manu-
facture and assembly of materials. Many of
the building projects fall short of the desired
qualities. A great deal of the manufacturing
process of building components approaches
the custom method of fabrication and pro-
duction as opposed to automatic or semi-
automatic production-line basis. It is much
easier working with standardized unit dimen-
sions where all fabrication of steel, metal
alloys, pre-cast cement and plastics can be
jigged in assembly lines for fabrication in
increasing the efficiency of manufacturing. A
far greater need is in uniform codes and
regulations adopted for building, for safety,
heating and plumbing and electrical com-
ponents.
Mr. Speaker, I concur and endorse the
resolution. It has merits, but I go one step
more, and adopt the federal programme
known as BEAM. It is being endorsed by
the federal Department of Public Works.
They accepted this programme of necessity
for increased efficiency in the building in-
dustry, efficiency in more accurate estimates.
We in Canada are becoming more mobile,
moving from one province to another. Archi-
tects, engineers and tradesmen are construct-
ing new buildings everywhere in Canada. It
is time now for the province of Ontario, for
NOVEMBER 25, 1968
123
this government to get on the BEAM pro-
gramme, to come in loud and clear and to
get in step with the rest of Canada, in step
with our present and future needs.
Mr. Speaker, I endorse the resolution.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, it
hardly behooves me at this stage to say
again what has already been said twice. We
are in favour of progress in the building
industry and so I do not expect to take as
much time as the other speakers have taken.
But it is an interesting thing that when
people talk, as we have talked so much about
competition in all fields— and that competition
has brought a plethora of standards, sizes,
types of building materials and all the rest
of it— then, we come to the conclusion that
it is just too costly to put up with that kind
of competition in the whole building field.
TJien we start to look for standards; for a
way to cut down the costs of this kind of
duplication. Inventory, for example, is an
expensive business. We used to have, in this
province, if my figures are accurate, about
498 different sizes, types, specifications of
blocks, building blocks.
Just imagine the expense of maintaining
inventory of this kind. The expense of setting
up the manufacturing equipment for all these
different kinds of building blocks. We began
to get some sense and began to move toward
co-ordination, modular co-ordination; the kind
of co-ordination which makes just plain
commonsense in the building industry. So
today, we have not 498 different specifications
for building blocks, but 12.
This simplifies the problem in a dramatic
way, and gives to us a new perspective in
the whole building field. Here in the metro-
politan area, the school board, I understand,
has undertaken to build 31 schools and an
office building by the early 70's under this
kind of method where the specifications are
laid down; where the different types of
materials and gadgets that fit into the build-
ing are so planned that they fit together and
they make one coherent whole. It limits the
amount of work that has to be done on the
building site. The old craft method of putting
together a home or a building there, bringing
in all the piles of lumber, the different
materials that have to be assembled, is done
away with in large measure. The inter-relat-
ing systems in this programme which Metro
is now undertaking, the Metro school board,
means that 75 per cent of the total building
package is brought in and assembled in this
way. The finishing has to be done by the
crafts but 75 per cent of this can be done
through modular co-ordination.
I watched in some of the social democratic
countries in Europe where this kind of pro-
cess is going on. Great apartment blocks and
great office blocks going up with the cranes
simply fitting into place these articles, these
parts of a building built to this kind of
specification.
So we understand and we support this kind
of modular co-ordination which is now be-
coming widespread. But we think this. Not
only should we be using it but we should
have the kind of legislation which makes it
easier. Perhaps revising the national building
code, as I suggested last year, will help in
this whole field. Certainly, standards set by
this government for its own building will be
of great assistance. As soon as we begin to
tie in the public building with the private
sector, and all together, start to move with
the modular co-ordination plan, then I am
certain that the cut in building costs, the
cut in the time factor, will be dramatic.
I have the figures here which the author-
ities in this field say are accurate. This kind
of construction will result in 10 to 15 per
cent cut in the cost. It is much better quality,
a far, far speedier construction and more than
that, the architects say that it lends itself to
far more exciting concepts of building.
So, Mr. Speaker, I simply say today that
we support this whole concept. We support
this idea. We support this resolution. It is
another illustration of how the Tory mind is
gradually coining toward the road to what
has been called, across the floor of this
House, socialism. More co-ordination, more
co-operation, more socialism in the whole
field which once used to be a jungle of
capitalism.
So we congratulate the member for mov-
ing in this direction, for moving closer to the
ideas which we have had for a long time and
we ask this government to get with it and
start to move in this direction.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, to-
morrow we will continue with the Throne
Debate.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.30 o'clock, p.m.
No. 6
ONTARIO
^legislature of (Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, November 26, 1968
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
-
CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 26, 1968
rates Bannon and Gardhouse, Mr. Wishart 127
Motion to appoint Mr. Reuter as chairman of the committee of the whole House,
Mr. Robarts, agreed to 127
Public Utilities Act, bill to amend, Mr. Deans, first reading 128
Coroners Act, bill to amend, Mr. Shulman, first reading 128
Provincial Courts Act, statement by Mr. Wishart 128
Safety regulations for tunnel workers, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. MacDonald and
Mr. De Monte 129
Adverse weather loan, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Spence 130
Safety regulations for school buses, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. T. Reid 130
Throne Speech translation into French, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Knight 131
Bellwood Orchard property in Hamilton, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Deans 131
Home purchase plans OHC tenants, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Deans 132
ODC loans to firms in designated areas, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Ben 132
Thistletown OHC complex, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Ben 132
Uniform building code, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Ben and Mr. Sargent 133
Rapid transit systems, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Sargent 135
Headlight failures in motor vehicles, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Sargent 135
Mafia factions in eastern Canada, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Young 135
Home purchase plans for OHC tenants, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Braithwaite 136
Proctor-Silex dispute, question to Mr. Bales, Mr. Pilkey 136
Assessment advantages to attact industries, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Pitman 137
Staff conditions at Millbrook reformatory, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Grossman and
Mr. Wishart, Mr. Pitman 137
Confederation of Tomorrow booklet, questions to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Burr 138
Home purchase plans for OHC tenants, question to Mr. Randall, Mr. Burr 138
Gasoline tax refund, question to Mr. MacNaughton, Mr. Ruston 139
Home purchase plans for OHC tenants, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. B. Newman 139
Sale of health insurance, questions to Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Shulman 140
Civil service association, question to Mr. MacNaughton, Mr. Gisborn 141
Land acquisition for provincial park, questions to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Gisborn 141
Adverse weather insurance, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. T. P. Reid 142
Algonquin Park, questions to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. T. P. Reid 142
Licence suspension by magistrates, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Bullbrook 143
Provincial judges, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Singer 143
Construction zone speed limits, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Young 145
Reconstruction of highway, question to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Stokes 145
Commemoration of birth of Hon. George Brown, statement by Mr. Robarts 145
Municipal Act, bill to amend, Mr. McKeough, second reading 146
Municipal Act, bill to amend, reported 147
Third reading 147
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Nixon, Mr. MacDonald 147
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. MacDonald, agreed to 165
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 165
127
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2.30 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Today, in our galleries we
have visitors from several schools. In the east
gallery from Orchard Park High School in
Hamilton; Tabor Park Vocational School in
Scarborough; and Sunningdale Public School,
Oakville; and in the west gallery, Glenview
Senior Public School, Toronto, and from
Upper Canada College in Toronto.
Later this afternoon, we will be joined by
students from Port Perry High School in Port
Perry and from Ryerson Polytechnic School
in Toronto.
We welcome these young people here.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the report
of the inquiry re Magistrate Frederick J.
Bannon and Magistrate George W. Gard-
house.
This is pursuant to the requirement of
section 3, subsection 4, of The Magistrates
Act which requires the report to be tabled
within 15 days of the opening of the Legis-
lature.
With the report, Mr. Speaker, I table the
six volumes which comprise a transcript of
evidence and correspondence relating to the
resignation and dismissal of Magistrate Ban-
non and the Orders-in-Council having to do
with that same matter.
Mr. Speaker: Motions.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves, seconded by Mr.
Nixon, that Mr. A. E. Reuter, member for the
electoral district of Waterloo South, be ap-
pointed chairman of the committee of the
whole House for the present session.
Hon. J. P. Robarts ( Prime Minister ) :
Before you put the motion, Mr. Speaker, I
would just like to take this occasion to express
the thanks and appreciation of this side of
the House for the way in which the hon.
member discharged his duties last year.
We do not always agree with his ruling,
sir, any more than we always agree with
Tuesday, November 26, 1968
yours, but we always find him to be so emi-
nently fair that we accept them, even if we
do not agree with them.
I felt that, last year, these duties were dis-
charged well and efficiently, and I look for-
ward to the same performance, if I may put
it that way, and the same high standard of
excellence in the months that lie ahead.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be
asked to second the motion which has been
put and to say that we, too, have confidence
in the fair judgment of the hon. member in
carrying out his duties for another year.
Sometimes I feel he is the hardest work-
ing person, not only in government or in
Opposition, but in the whole of the Legis-
lature since he has to spend so many hours
directing our deliberations on the estimates.
It is not possible for him to let his attention
wander on brief occasions, as it is possible,
perhaps, on both sides of the House, because
he never knows when precisely he is going
to be called upon to settle some small flare-
up.
He does work extremely hard in this par-
ticular job and I can say from this side that
we appreciate it very greatly. And I hope
that he can give me the assurances that he
will not use the gratitude and compliments
that have been expressed on this side of the
House so frequently in his election pamphlets
next time.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I can only echo the comments of
both the Prime Minister and the leader of the
Opposition. Indeed, I want to congratulate
the Prime Minister because I think this is,
in my experience, an unprecedented event.
We have had traditions in the past that, no
matter how good or— dare I add— how bad
persons have been in this position, they have
had one term of office only and there was no
opportunity to carry on good work.
In this instance, I think it is highly com-
mendable that the government is giving the
hon. member for Waterloo South an oppor-
tunity to carry on in this capacity. I was
confident, when he was appointed last year,
that he would be about as fair a person as
128
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ever sat in that chair— and events prove that
to be the case. As with the Prime Minister,
I will say that on occasion I did not agree
with his ruling but, again, with the Prime
Minister, I always thought that he was mak-
ing them honestly and they were eminently
fair. Perhaps, in retrospect, I was even per-
suaded he was right.
Mr. Speaker: If I may, I will join the
leaders of the parties and say that I, too, am
exceedingly pleased at this motion of the
House and I know it will add to the efficiency
and good work of the members.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of bills.
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth) moves first read-
ing of bill intituled, An Act to amend The
Public Utilities Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
this bill is to prohibit the collection of secur-
ity deposits for the supplying of public
utilities.
THE CORONERS ACT
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Coroners Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, this bill em-
bodies the recommendation made by Chief
Justice McRuer that affected persons be
allowed to examine witnesses at an inquest
either in person or through counsel.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Attorney General.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, before the orders of the day, I
should like to make a brief statement with
respect to The Provincial Courts Act and the
proclamation thereof.
I wish to advise the hon. members that the
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has, by bis
proclamation, named Monday, December 2,
1968, as the day upon which The Provincial
Courts Act, 1968, shall come into force in
our province. The existing members of the
magisterial and juvenile and family court
benches have now been appointed as judges
of the provincial court, providing a full time
complement of 130 judges.
I should also mention, Mr. Speaker, that
12 men have been appointed as part time
judges with appointments expiring on April
30, 1969, in order that we may have an
orderly transition to a complete and full time
bench over a period of time. The county
court judges who have provided valuable
service in the juvenile and family courts have
now retired.
As hon. members know, Mr. Speaker, the
Act provides for a provincial court made up
of a criminal division and a family division,
with courts of record sitting for each division
in every county and district. The provincial
court of the county or district will sit in such
parts of the area as may be necessary to
meet the needs of the people, and initially
in the same location as previously served by
the courts now replaced.
All of the steps have been taken for the
orderly establishment of the new court, Mr.
Speaker, and we look forward to the improve-
ments and developments that we are sure
will be realized under the new system. The
Judicial Council with the new procedural pro-
vision in the court, will, I am sure, enable
us to deal more effectively with the responsi-
bility that is placed upon ourselves and the
judges of the provincial courts.
Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member a ques-
tion of the Minister? The hon. leader of the
Opposition always has the first question.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the Minister of Health, who is not
in his seat today, so I will forego that
privilege.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
South.
Mr. MacDonald: I have a number of ques-
tions; the first one is a carryover from yester-
day to the Minister of Labour.
In view of the lack of enforcement of
safety regulations for tunnel workers, as
acknowledged by the Deputy Minister of
Labour and the chief officer of the construc-
tion safety branch on last Sunday night's
"W-5" programme on the CTV network, what
steps has the Minister taken to assure that
henceforth regulations will be enforced?
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Dovercourt (Mr.
De Monte) had a question somewhat similar
in context. He is not able to be here today
and he asked me if I would pose the question
for him. I do not know whether the Minister
of Labour wants to answer them both at
once or—
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
129
Mr. Speaker: I think it might be well if
the hon. member would place the question of
the member for Dovercourt now.
Mr. Singer: The question is this, Mr.
Speaker:
(1) Has the Minister looked into the new
system of medical examinations now required
by the State of California for men working
under pressure in tunnels?
(2) What medical requirements are now
sot down by his department for men working
under pressure?
(3) In view of the fact that most or part
of the Yonge Street subway extension will be
constructed by the tunnel method under pres-
sure, is the Minister considering a review of
the medical requirements for men working
under pressure?
(4) Does his department inspect the proj-
ects where men are working under pressure?
(5) Is there a medical inspector w1k> does
a medical inspection on the job site?
(6) How many inspectors are there?
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, I will deal with the questions separ-
ately, if I may.
In reply to the question from the hon.
member for York South, I hue been assured
by my officials that no such acknowledgment
was made and it is not correct to say that
there is a lack of enforcement of safety regu-
lations for tunnel workers. Certain claims
were made on the programme by members of
Local 183 of the Labourers' Union and these
are now being vigorously investigated.
With reference to the question placed by
the hon. member for Downsview as initially
submitted by the hon. member for Dover-
court, I will deal with the answers to the
questions as raised:
In answer to the first part: I am aware of
the California system and the officials of my
department, together with our medical con-
sultants, are looking into it.
The second part: I would refer the mem-
ber to the sections 106 to 114 inclusive of
regulations 100/63 made under The Depart-
ment of Labour Act. In addition, supple-
mentary information and advice are supplied
by medical consultants in the health depart-
ment to project physicians.
The third part is that a review is cur-
rently under way in reference to this matter.
The fourth part, the answer is yes.
The fifth: The regulations require a phy-
sician to be appointed to carry out all neces-
sary medical functions on every compressed
air project. The project physicians are re-
sponsible for all the medical aspects of each
project and under, in effect, medical inspec-
tors.
The last part: The number of compressed
air projects have averaged about nine in a
year and there are four inspectors of caissons
who regularly inspect them.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
I might ask the Minister a supplementary
question? Without getting into an argument
with him as to whether or not there were
violations admitted on Sunday night, it was
conceded that there was not an extensive
health examination at the beginning. There
was never any examination midway through
the day's work. There was never a full ex-
amination at the end.
Is it the obligation of the union to bring
to the attention of the government such
failure to live up to the regulations, or does
the department assume responsibility for en-
forcing its own regulations?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I have not
seen the transcript from that programme nor
did I see the programme itself, but I have
ordered a transcript. The department takes
an active part in this and there are certain
matters that have come to light since yester-
day in reference to claims that were made
and I would prefer to wait until I have had
a full investigation made.
Mr. MacDonald: My question, Mr. Speaker,
is to the Minister of Trade and Develop-
ment in four parts:
1. When was a forgiveness loan extended
to Matthews Conveyer Company in Port
Hope?
2. For what amount was the loan?
3. Is the Minister aware that since receiv-
ing the loan the company has laid off 50
workers and further lay-offs are currently
under way?
4. Do the conditions of the forgiveness
loan permit cut backs in the work force?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Speaker, I received that
question a few minutes ago. I am getting
information and I will pass it on to the hon.
member tomorrow perhaps.
Mr. Speaker: There are from last week
two questions of the Minister of Agriculture
and Food, one by the hon. member for
Huron-Bruce. Does he wish to place that
question?
130
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
I have had the information given to me
privately. I will withdraw the question.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent.
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, my
question to the Minister of Agriculture and
Food:
Is the Minister prepared to extend the
adverse weather loan one more year to those
farmers who are finding it impossible to
meet the loan payments because of low agri-
culture prices and adverse weather conditions?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I find some
difficulty in accepting this request. The ad-
verse weather loan was provided, as you will
recall, two years ago and again last year.
The government of Ontario provided the
interest payment in its entirety for the first
year^ and 50 per cent of the interest payment
for the second year. The farmers were
required on the second year to make a per-
centage payment— I believe it was ten per
cent of their obligation, if my memory serves
me correctly— and 50 per cent of the total
interest on the loan for that year.
I sympathize with farmers who have had
crop losses this year, but I frankly do not
believe they were very extensive. There were
individual cases but it certainly was not on
the widespread basis that had pertained in
other years. We have taken the position that
the loans are guaranteed by the government
to the banks. We expect the banks to use
all normal means of collection that they
usually pursue in such matters. I would feel
that we had better let things stand as they
are, because crop insurance is being provided
and I have grave doubts about extending
adverse weather loans assistance when crop
insurance is available on most crops now.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
Minister would permit a supplementary ques-
tion?
Is the Minister aware that some farmers
have approached the banks for an extension
of this money and that they refuse to do
anything for them, or refuse to write to you,
Mr. Minister, for an extension to carry them
over till next year?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, I was not aware of
it.
Mr. Speaker: Yesterday there was a ques-
tion by the hon. member for Scarborough
East (Mr. T. Reid) of the Minister of Edu-
cation. It was transferred to the Minister of
Transport. The member for Scarborough
East, being absent today, has requested that
the answer be given so that it may be on
record and available to the public. I wonder
if the Minister of Transport has that; it is
question No. 92 with respect to school buses?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon.
member for Scarborough East yesterday of
the Minister of Education and referred now
to me comes in two parts dealing respectively
with the vehicle and the driver.
First as to the equipment required on
school buses. The Highway Traffic Act re-
quires departmental approval for all safety
glass, head lamps and reflectors used on all
motor vehicles. In addition, on school buses,
the special signalling lamps that are required
for stopping when picking up or discharging
pupils must be approved.
There are other requirements for school
buses in particular. These vehicles must be
equipped with such items as rear emergency
door; push-out windows; tire chains or snow
tires on each driving wheel that is not of a
dual type, whenever highway conditions re-
quire their use; interior view mirrors and
exterior rear view mirrors; insulated floors;
windshield wipers and defrosters; interior
lighting; fire extinguishers and emergency
tools.
I will now deal with how these require-
ments are enforced. Regulations made under
The Highway Traffic Act require that school
buses having a seating capacity of ten or
more, and may not be operated unless a
certificate of mechanical fitness is filed with
the department, on or before August 31 and
December 31 of each year. Certificates
required under this regulation are thus re-
quired immediately prior to the beginning of
the school year, and again at a point in the
year when the vehicles will be subject to the
most severe winter driving conditions. The
inspection must be carried out by a certified
class A motor mechanic.
Our control file of these certificates is so
devised that the department is aware imme-
diately of any dereliction on the part of the
operator. An inspector then investigates to
determine why a certificate has not been
filed, and in the course of the investigation,
he inspects the vehicle, orders an in-depth
inspection by a mechanic, and recommends
the laying of charges if the circumstances
warrant it. In addition to the inspection I
have mentioned, every school bus is seen by
our inspectors at least twice annually— once
normally during September or October and
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
131
again in February or March. The second part
of the question relates to the school bus
driver. An application to pass a driver's
licence requires the applicant to file at the
time of his first application, a satisfactory
medical certificate, and to pass comprehen-
sive tests of vision, sign recognition, knowl-
edge of the rules of the road, bus equipment,
safety and passenger control as well as driv-
ing ability. The road test must be taken in
a school bus. The vision standards for school
bus drivers are more vigorous than those for
other drivers and are uniform across Canada.
They now require a rating of 20-30—90 per
cent— in the better eye, and 20-50—76 per
cent— in the weaker eye. Field vision must
be 120 degrees in each eye, and colour recog-
nition is tested to ensure the ability to dis-
tinguish between red and green.
School bus drivers, 65 years of age and
over, are required to pass a certificate of
physical fitness, signed by a medical prac-
titioner, and to pass the complete test I have
mentioned each year. Those under 65 years
of age are required to file a certificate of
physical fitness, and to pass tests of vision
and knowledge of the rules of the road every
three years. If the medical certificate indi-
cates any chronic ailment in the given list,
the opinion of my medical advisers is ob-
tained as to the competence of the person
to operate a school bus.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York
Centre was on his feet a moment ago to
ask a question on behalf of the hon. mem-
ber for Port Arthur (Mr. Knight).
Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): I have
a question for the Prime Minister from the
hon. member for Port Arthur.
Pourquoi l'adresse au commencement de la
deuxieme session, mardi, n'a pas ete en
francais aussi bien que en anglais. Et pour-
quoi, la traduction ne tient pas sur nos
bureaux ici aujourd'hui?
Why was the Throne Speech opening
the second session on Tuesday not read
in the French language, and why is a copy of
the French translation not on the desks of the
members in this House today?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I
should say that the speech was not com-
pleted in time to have it translated quite as
rapidly as we would have liked. In any event,
the translation was completed on Wednesday,
and the French copies were distributed to
some members of this assembly— I do not
know whether they were distributed to all
members. They were distributed to all French
newspapers and periodicals on our complete
French mailing list. There are copies avail-
able for any of the members who would like
to have them.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
worth.
Mr. Deans: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have two
questions for the hon. Minister of Trade and
Development.
Would the Minister inform the House of
the year that the Bellwood Orchard property
was purchased by the Ontario Housing Cor-
poration, and how much money has been
expended by the government in purchase and
development of this land?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, in answer
to the hon. member, the Bellwood Orchard
property in Hamilton was acquired under
the provision of the land acquisition holding
agreement dated February 1, 1954, between
the federal and provincial governments.
Secondly, the Ontario Housing Corpora-
tion is continually in the market for land,
and uses its best endeavours to obtain the
most favourable prices. At the moment, we
have options on land in many areas of the
province and we do not believe, as I have
stated previously, that it would be in the
public interest to disclose prices at which
this land had been purchased.
Thirdly, the development cost to date of
the Bellwood Orchard property amounts to
$1,043,481. This is being developed in phases
of: the first 97.5 acres in two plans of sub-
division; another 241.5 acres now under
planned development, and the remaining 504
acres to be developed as quickly as services
can be provided.
In this regard, the Ontario Housing Cor-
poration has already indicated its willingness
to advance funds required towards service
costs if they are needed.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
clarification, does that figure include the pur-
chase price?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, that is just serv-
ices; the member asked for development
costs.
Mr. Deans: Well?
Hon. Mr. Randall: We are not disclosing
the purchase prices.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend
that they be separated. I was quite happy
to get them both lumped together.
A second question for the—
132
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Secret conduct of public
business!
Hon. Mr. Randall: What does the member
want us to do; go out and advertise that the
government is coming into buy land, hit them
with the brass band?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Would everybody raise-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member
will place his second question.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, a second ques-
tion. Will the Minister explain the sale price
of $16,000 per unit for the homes which are
being offered for sale in the Guelph Green
Meadows subdivision?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, the homes
in the Guelph Green Meadows subdivision
were appraised by OHC in relation to the
current prices being paid for comparable
houses in the same general area. However,
as the hon. member well knows, the market
price for a house is determined, among other
tilings, by the financing arrangements which
are available.
For example, a small down payment with
favourable interest rates of a long term mort-
gage on the balance commands a higher
price than all cash.
The actual cost to the tenants in Guelph
is $14,000 as this is the figure on which prin-
cipal and interest payments are calculated.
The additional $2,000 or a portion of it
will not become payable unless the tenant
or purchaser subsequently disposes of the
property within a five-year period from the
date of purchase. At the end of five years,
the additional $2,000 is forgiven.
This is a built in discipline which is felt
to be preferable to a "buy back" provision
to eliminate speculation which, after all, is
not the purpose of the tenant purchase plan.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, would the Min-
ister accept a supplementary question? Is it
the intent of the Ontario Housing Corpora-
tion to follow this practice into other com-
munities and, in particular, into Hamilton?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, there are
other questions here. Perhaps, when I get
through, I will have the answer for you. The
answer is that we are going to look at every
project in all communities and see how best
we can work out an arrangement.
Mr. Speaker: Tyhe hon. member for Hum-
ber.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Speaker, I have
a question also of the hon. Minister of
Trade and Development. What are the names
of the two lending institutions which refused
to grant loans to each of the following com-
panies, in order that they might qualify for
a loan when locating in areas of the prov-
ince designated as slow growth areas by the
Ontario Development Corporation? The com-
panies are: Union Carbide, Kraft Foods,
Allied Chemical, Campbell Soups and Moore
Corporation.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, it is a
good question. I am glad I have got the
answers. The companies mentioned did not
apply for a conventional loan. The com-
panies mentioned got a forgiveness loan
which, if they stay in the area for six years,
will be written off completely.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a sup-
plementary question— and that is do any of
these companies that I named go into a
new area to erect a plant, as distinguished
from either extending an existing plant or
buying new equipment?
Hon. Mr. Randall: The answer is "yes".
Some went in to build a new plant in a new
area.
You asked me initially: Did these com-
panies go to other financial institutions and
were turned down? The answer is "no"; they
did not have to go to other financial institu-
tions. They got a forgiveness loan.
Mr. Ben: My supplementary question was
this: Which of these companies actually con-
structed a new building in a new location,
as distinguished from merely putting on an
addition to an existing plant or just bringing
in new equipment?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I would
say— Union Carbide, Kraft Foods, Allied
Chemical, Moore Corporation and Campbell
Soups.
Mr. Ben: I cannot answer the Minister
but I have another question.
Mr. Speaker: T^he hon. member is on his
feet at this moment to ask questions, not to
answer them.
Mr. Ben: That is right. I still have a—
Hon. Mr. Randall: If the hon. member is
going to answer them, I will sit down.
Mr. Ben: I have another question of the
same Minister. How many evictions have
there been from the Ontario Housing com-
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
133
plex at Thistletown during the past two
years?
I have another question. Do you want me
to read it now?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think the hon. mem-
ber should place his question.
Mr. Ben: What was the cost of mainten-
ance at Thistletown during 1967?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, the
Thistletown complex was built in two sep-
arate stages. The first, comprising 309 units,
was taken over progressively from September
30, 1966 to August 3, 1967. The second
phase of 245 units was taken under manage-
ment again progressively, between November
13, 1967 and March 21, 1968, and during the
past two years the leases of 29 tenants have
been terminated by OHC for cause. Of these,
28 families located voluntarily and in only
one case was it necessary for the corporation
to obtain vacant possession through the
courts.
The answer to the second question is that
the maintenance cost at Thistletown during
1967 amounted to $34,962 inclusive of labour
and material, broken down as follows:
Building exteriors $23,156, building in-
teriors $772, internal painting $8,090, me-
chanical and electrical systems $1,882,
appliances $248, grounds $249, fire and wind
damage $825, sundry $254; for a total of
$35,476 less recoveries from tenants $514 to
a net of $34,962.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-
Mr. Speaker: I believe the other Ministers
are all absent if the hon. member has a— Oh,
the Minister of Municipal Affairs lias returned.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, my question to the
Minister of Municipal Affairs, notice of which
has been given, is:
When will the province— and here Mr.
Speaker we should have added, other than in
due course or in the fullness of time or even-
tually—when will the province compel all
municipalities to adopt a national building
code?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Munic-
ipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
member's question, I would first like to refer
to a survey carried out by the associate com-
mittee on the national building code. It was
made in the year 1966 and pertains to the
use of the national building code by munici-
palities in Canada.
In this province, it is reported that 87.5
per cent of the population live in municipali-
ties that have adopted the national building
code, or have used it as a base for building
by-laws. As I have done on two previous
occasions in this House, I again state my
support for the principle of uniform building
standards throughout the province of Ontario.
Much correspondence has been addressed
to me on this subject and I have spoken with
people representing the various interests of
the professions— the building construction in-
dustry, local municipalities and building
material manufacturers.
There are many different points of view
among supporters of uniform building stand-
ards about how, by whom and to what extent
uniformity can be realized. It was because of
their fundamental differences that it was de-
cided to appoint a committee, as I reported
to this House at the last session. On Sep-
teml>er 12, the appointment of committee
members was announced, chaired by Mr.
Carnithers, the brother of the hon. member
for Durham.
Meetings are underway currently and the
committee will shortly be inviting written
submissions so that it may determine possible
courses of action and the means whereby they
may be carried out.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the manda-
tory adoption of uniform building standards
cannot be considered before the committee
report is received, and they hope to report
to me by July 1, next.
Mr. Ben: Will the hon. Minister entertain a
supplementary question?
May I ask the hon. Minister, what per-
centage of the population of this province is
encompassed by the 87 per cent of munici-
palities mentioned by the hon. Minister?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, it is 87.5 per
cent of the population.
Mr. Ben. Another supplementary question.
Is the Minister aware that one-third of the
population of this province, roughly one-third,
is in the municipality of Metropolitan To-
ronto and it has not adopted the national
building code?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I do not like to dis-
agree with the hon. member but I think he
will find that four of the boroughs have
adopted a common code; the city of Toronto
is about to adopt that same code and the
remaining borough, which I think is York, is
also. The six municipalities in Metropolitan
134
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Toronto either have or will, within the next
few weeks, have one code, as you have cor-
rectly pointed out, covering roughly one-third
of the population of the province.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Would
the Minister answer a supplementary ques-
tion?
Mr. Speaker: Only from the member who
asked the question.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hum-
ber has finished his question; if the hon.
member wishes now to ask his questions, he
may start off with that one.
Mr. Sargent: I was wondering if he could
answer, it is supplementary, Mr. Speaker,
but-
Mr. Speaker: Start off by asking the hon.
Minister the question.
Mr. Sargent: Will the Minister advise
what steps have been taken to bring about
the modernization of construction regulations
under a new building code to save millions
of dollars in construction costs? Will he ad-
vise if a new code, being introduced in New
York and which will cut building costs by
10 per cent, would have the same effect here?
When was the present code— we do now have
one, I find— dated? If a new code is under
way who is drafting it, how much will the
draft cost? Will the techniques be designed
to bring construction savings, including
stronger suspension structures, reduced fire-
resistant ratings, reduced elevator equipment
requirements; and more realistically will they
include safety provisions for structural ma-
terials? And, finally, will there be revisions
of the administrative procedures for the ex-
pediting of issuance of building permits,
speedy inspection and faster approval of new
materials?
My supplementary question— do I take it,
Mr. Speaker, that this new committee,
through their report, will give the Minister
a provincial building code?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Does the member
want me to answer the question which he
asked six days ago or are we after-
Mr. Sargent: This is the first time I have
asked it.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: This question, of
course, Mr. Speaker, which I drew to your
attention on Friday, was placed before me on
Wednesday last and I have been carrying it
back and forth since. I am glad it has been
finally asked, and I thank the hon. member
for being-
Mr. Sargent: Well, the Minister should
have the answer now.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: In answering the
questions :
1. To my knowledge there has not been an
estimate prepared anywhere about the effect
of uniform building standards on building
costs. The only saving we have heard about
related to houses and the amount estimated
for houses is $500. The full benefit for all
types of buildings cannot be measured at this
time. The potential for new building tech-
niques, new building materials, increased
productivity and reduced inventories, is in-
herent in any system of uniform standards.
All of these have an effect on building costs.
Presumably, as to the second part of the
question the member is referring to the
national building code of Canada. If he is
not, then I cannot answer the question with-
out clarification. The national building code
of Canada is under constant examination.
Amendments are endorsed by the associate
committee on the code. Amending revision
slips are forwarded to all those with a copy
of the code and every five years there is a
revision made of the code. The 1970 con-
solidation is in preparation now.
The third part of the question: If this
question refers to the national building code,
the answer to question 2 applies. As to cost,
copies of the code are available at a nominal
cost of $5. The short form is free, except in
bulk, when a nominal charge is made.
If the question does not refer to the na-
tional building code then I would need some
further clarification.
The fourth part: A very desirable feature
of the national building code is that it is a
performance type code, that is to say, instead
of specifying exactly how buildings are to
be constructed, minimum standards of struc-
tural and fire safety performances are set
down. Any material, combination of ma-
terials, building techniques, and so on, capa-
ble of meeting required performance ratings
is permissible.
Finally, to all three parts of the fifth ques-
tion, the answer is that these are desirable
goals and we are exerting much effort to
achieve them. These efforts were so well
enunciated, I would remind members of the
House, as well as the goals were so well
enunciated by the member for Halton East in
this House.
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
135
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-
Bruce has, with Mr. Speaker, three questions
which are unasked and almost a week old.
I ask that he either ask them today or with-
draw them.
Mr. Sargent: You will be happy to hear,
Mr. Speaker, I do not have my questions
with me. I do not think I should have to
withdraw them.
Mr. Speaker: I would be delighted to
hand the questions to the hon. member
and he may then ask them.
Mr. Sargent: Will the Prime Minister ad-
vise why all rapid transit systems installed in
all areas of America were voted upon by
the people who provide the tax money, and,
where has he the authority to spend millions
of dollars from the Ontario Treasury to
service one area of the people without the
vote of the people? Now there is a good one
for you.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I have no
idea whether what the hon. member says is
factually correct or not, therefore I cannot
express an opinion on it. I would point out
to him that this government spends many,
many hundreds of millions of dollars in this
province, in providing all forms of trans-
portation for people in various ports of the
province.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister has
stated he will not accept a supplementary
question, so the hon. member will please
proceed to his next question.
Mr. Sargent: Another question to the Prime
Minister: Will the government agree to an
immediate audit, outside audit, to determine
the exact financial position of the financial
affairs of the Ontario government because
of the financial nightmare facing the prov-
ince? He said "no" before.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Why ask me again?
Mr. Sargent: By the Speaker's order.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member had an
alternative, he could have withdrawn the
question.
Mr. Sargent: We take all the advantage
we can get here.
I have a question of the Minister of Trans-
port: What steps have been taken to require
passenger cars and multi-purpose passenger
vehicles to be equipped to combat the
hazard of the one-eyed vehicle?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, in the
equipment portion, that would be part 5 of
The Highway Traffic Act, section 33 spells
out the offence of operating a motor vehicle
without two headlights showing white light
to the front at any time when lights are
required. There are two approaches being
developed to take care of this headlamp
failure problem. One approach is by way of
wiring in the parking light system with the
headlight system so that in the event of one
of the headlights burning out, the parking
lights will indicate the width and location of
the vehicle.
Another approach is being taken by the
manufacturers of headlamps in providing a
secondary filament with a low light output
so that when the regular primary high or low
beam filament burns out, the headlamp will
continue to glow and in that way identify to
an oncoming vehicle the width and the loca-
tion of the vehicle.
Mr. Speaker: the hon. member for York-
view has a question of the Attorney General
of yesterday's date, which he may wish to
place today.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, my
question to the Attorney General is this:
According to a story in yesterday's Globe
and Mail, a peace treaty has been arranged
between two Mafia factions whereby what
are called "lucrative interests in Eastern
Canada" were transferred from the Bonnano
faction to that of another leader.
Is the Minister satisfied that the term
"Eastern Canada" used here does not include
the province of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the article
to which the hon. member refers is a purely
speculative article with the headline "New
York". There is nothing I have in the way
of information to indicate that there is any
reference to Ontario. The information which
the police commission have, through their
intelligence, leads them to believe that the
reference is to the Montreal area, but I
would point out again that the only reference
in what I think is a very speculative article
says: "according to one federal official"—
and that "federal" refers to a federal official
in the United States— "the Bonanno faction
will lose lucrative interests in Eastern Canada
under the peace treaty".
We have no reason to believe it refers to
Ontario.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Etobi-
coke.
138
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question of the Minister
of Trade and Development which is quite
similar to the question put earlier by the
member for Wentworth.
What plans does the Minister have to ex-
tend, to Metro Toronto residents in Ontario
housing, the same home ownership oppor-
tunities that have been given to residents of
Guelph?
The second part of the question, Mr.
Speaker: In the interests of fairness to On-
tario Housing Corporation apartment dwell-
ers, is the Minister considering a similar plan
whereby they might eventually achieve home
ownership for themselves?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, the tenant
purchase plan which has just been introduced
in Guelph as a pilot project applies only in
the Green Meadows subdivision of that city.
This subdivision was developed under the
old federal-provincial partnership arrange-
ment whereby the federal government holds
title to the property and has a direct 75 per
cent financial interest.
In accordance with existing legislation at
present the tenant purchase plan can only be
introduced in developments financed under
that arrangement. To extend its provisions
to housing developed directly by OHC,
wherein 90 per cent of the capital costs are
loaned by the federal government, will re-
quire an amendment of The National Housing
Act.
I have had discussions on this point with
the federal Minister responsible for housing
and his predecessors, and I have been given
to understand that the federal government
does intend to introduce the necessary
amendment. Until such time as the federal
legislation is changed, however, the hon.
member will understand that the tenant-
purchase aspect of the HOME programme
can only be applied to federal-provincial
projects.
In Metropolitan Toronto, to which the hon.
member's question is specifically addressed,
there are only five such developments. It is
our intention to analyze very carefully the
Guelph pilot project and this analysis will
assist in determining the other areas where
this scheme can be introduced in consulta-
tion with Central Mortgage and Housing
Corporation. CMHA approval is necessarily
required because of their 75 per cent finan-
cial involvement.
Where apartment units are concerned—
which, of course, involves the use by tenants
of certain common facilities— this would
necessitate a condominium arrangement,
rather than the techniques which have been
applied to the single detached homes in
Guelph, and this government has already
indicated that it will be actively pursuing
the condominium concept.
Mr. Braithwaite: Would the Minister per-
mit a supplementary question? Under the
existing situation does the Minister see any
obstacles to the residents in the Thistletown
project being able to purchase their own
homes?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Not particularly, as
soon as the amendment to The National
Housing Act goes through. I think then we
can enter into negotiations.
Mr. Braithwaite: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitch-
ener.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
of Energy and Resources Management, no-
tice of which has been given. Can the Min-
ister advise the House as to the cost to the
government of Ontario through the Ontario
Water Resources Commission, of the mailing
on August 22, 1968, of a news release regard-
ing the Root family reunion, the covering
letter for which was on the letterhead of the
commission over the signature of the vice-
chairman of the commission?
Secondly, can the Minister advise further
how this release has advanced the work of
the commission?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
as the member for Wellington-DufFerin (Mr.
Root) is out of the city today I am sorry that
I am unable to answer the questions. How-
ever, I will see that he gets a copy of the
questions. I am sure he would like to
answer them himself in this House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Oshawa.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker,
a question for the hon. Minister of Labour.
Is The Department of Labour involved in
any manner in an attempt to resolve the
Proctor-Silex dispute in Picton?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, I always
welcome questions from the hon. members
and as the hon. member has been in touch
with my officials on a number of occasions
in reference to this matter, I am sure he is
aware that we have been involved in this
dispute for some time.
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
137
For example, yesterday my chief concilia-
tion officer was in touch with the union
leadership and today he expects to be talk-
ing to the company representatives so that
we can assess again how we may best help
the parties to resolve this matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peter-
borough.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to address a question
to the Minister of Trade and Development.
In view of the statements of Eric Hardy Con-
sulting Limited that the town of Trenton has
teen giving assessment advantages or grant-
ing bonuses in order to attract industries, has
the Minister reviewed this municipality's
designation under the Equalization of Indus-
trial Opportunity programme?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, the Hardy
report has not been available to either my
department or that of the Minister of Munici-
pal Affairs. I think this was brought up one
day last work. Mr. Hardy was commissioned
by the town of Trenton to complete this re-
port Cor them but to date has not seen fit tj
make a copy available so that the grants to
which he refers to attract industries can be
reviewed.
I might mention that irrespective of the
Hardy report, the directors of Ontario Devel-
opment Corporation are reviewing the desig-
nation of Trenton under the Equalization of
Industrial Opportunity programme, and as in
the case of other towns or other cities that
we believe may have secured sufficient indus-
try to solve their needs for the present, the
Ontario Development Corporation will be
making recommendations accordingly.
Mr. Pitman: Might I ask a supplementary
question? In view of the Minister's recent
trip to Trenton and his announcement that
$1.5 million of public money is being placed
in this municipality, if this has been done as
a result of illegal practices on the part of the
municipality rather than because of the
Equalization of Industrial Opportunity pro-
gramme, would the Minister not regard it as
incumbent to immediately remove the desig-
nation until this thing has been resolved?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I would have to look at
the Hardy report before I answer the ques-
tions.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, may I address a
question to the Prime Minister? Has the gov-
ernment of Ontario received a request from
the civil service association based on a
resolution passed unanimously at a recent
convention that a commission made up of
representatives of the civil service association
and the government, exclusive of any repre-
sentative of The Department of Correctional
Services, investigate staff conditions at Mill-
brook Reformatory?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The answer is "no", Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Pitman: Would the Prime Minister
accept a supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I do not know what
supplementary you could ask to an answer
like that.
Mr. Pitman: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might
try. If such a request was forwarded to the
Prime Minister would he be sympathetic to
such a request?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, it is surely
hypothetical. I would have to see what the
request is and see what, in fact, they were
asking before I could say whether I would be
sympathetic or unsympathetic. I mean I am
dealing in something of which I have no
knowledge and which has not even been
formulated in the minds of the asker, so how
could I say how I would feel about it?
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, it could not have been more clearly in
the mind of the asker. Apparently it is the
government which is having difficulty in this
matter.
I would ask a question of the Minister of
Correctional Services.
1. Did a serious attack take place on a
guard, a Mr. Carmen Bell, at Millbrook Re-
formatory on the evening of November 18?
2. Was there any provocation for the
attack?
3. By whom was a charge of assault laid
and why were those most concerned with the
attack not informed of the case before the
courts were— I think that was in Cobourg on
November 20?
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Correctional
Services): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon.
member's question, first of all I would like to
say I welcome very much the interest of the
members opposite in the problems which a
correctional officer-
Some hon. members: Answer the question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a matter of fact,
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, without being
given permission by you—
138
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
An hon. member: Answer the question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: —without being given
permission by you, made some comment in
answer to the Prime Minister's answer to his
question—
An hon. member: Answer the question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: —about the situation
at Millbrook. I will answer-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. Minister is
using that leeway which the Chair has always
given to members and which the hon. mem-
ber for Peterborough certainly used.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have been trying,
sir, tor five years to recruit their concern for
the correctional officers, and for five years I
have been attempting to defend the correc-
tional officers against the charges of brutality
against inmates. I am very pleased the hon.
member has asked this question and all I can
tell him is that as soon as the superintendent
learned of the sentence of 30 days— I think it
was, and I am speaking from memory— lie
took it up with our head office, asking that
an appeal be instituted against this short
sentence. Our head office has taken it up
with The Attorney General's Department, and
in view of the fact that an appeal is now
being considered I can hardly make any
further comment on it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, a part of the
answer of the Minister of Correctional Serv-
ices will, I think, perhaps answer my question
to the Attorney General which was:
1. Did an inmate of Millbrook Reformatory
appear before Magistrate Baxter in Cobourg
on November 20?
2. On what charge was the prisoner brought
before the courts?
3. Why were prosecution witnesses not
called and what was the sentence given to
that individual?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, in view
of the fact that we have been requested by
The Department of Correctional Services to
appeal the sentence imposed on this convic-
tion, I am precluded to some extent from
answering. But I am not going to curtail my
answer insofar as it is possible to answer the
question.
The prisoner was brought before the magis-
trate. The charge was assaulting a police
officer. No witnesses were called. He pleaded
guilty. The sentence was 30 days consecutive
to the sentence he was already serving.
I am proceeding to review the matter. In
any event we are proceeding to consider the
question as to appeal. Also, I may say that
I am not satisfied with the way it was dis-
posed of. I understand that an assistant
Crown attorney was in charge of the case
and was not aware and was not informed
of the facts when the plea of guilty was
entered and the case was proceeded with.
So I would simply answer the hon. mem-
ber: I am reviewing it. We are considering
the matter of appeal.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sand-
wich-Riverside.
Mr. F. A. Burr ( Sandwich-Riverside ) : Mr.
Speaker, a question for the Prime Minister.
What was the cost of producing and print-
ing the "Confederation of Tomorrow" book-
let? How many copies were published in
English? How many many copies were pub-
lished in French?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, $70,574.99;
50,000 English copies and 27,000 French
copies.
Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary
question. Is the Prime Minister aware that
about 70,000 copies are sitting in the hall on
the fourth floor?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, Mr. Speaker, I am
not aware of that and I very much doubt
that it is so.
Mr. Burr: Would the Prime Minister check
on it please?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Indeed, I will.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has a fur-
ther question of the Minister of Trade and
Development which he would place please.
Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a question of the
Minister of Trade and Development. Can the
Minister advise the House when homes in
the Fontainebleu housing development in
Windsor will be offered for sale to the pres-
ent tenants?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, the ques-
tion concerning the Fontainebleu develop-
ment in Windsor is on a similar subject to
that raised by the hon. member for Etobicoke.
These particular homes were developed
directly by OHC and, therefore, as I have
already indicated, the tenant purchase plan
cannot apply until the federal legislation is
changed.
These particular families are aware of this
fact as I had the pleasure of meeting with a
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
139
delegation from Fontainebleu some time ago
and this was followed up by the general
meeting in Windsor between the tenants and
senior officials of OHC.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-
Kent.
Mr. R. F. Ruston ( Essex - Kent ) : Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Pro-
vincial Treasurer. Will the Minister consider
a revision of the gas tax refund regulation to
allow farmers doing custom work for their
neighbours the same rebate as if it were done
on their own farm?
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton ( Provinical Treas-
urer): Yes, Mr. Speaker, the answer is that
without commitment the matter will be con-
sidered.
Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the hon. Minister of Correctional
Services. Is it the policy of the department to
provide compensation for property damage
caused by individuals who are wards of the
province in training schools?
Will there be compensation for tractor
damage, the destroying of antiques and other
valuables at the Harper residence north of
Cobourg as a result of the escape of nine
residents of Brookside School on August 28?
Has any disciplinary action been taken
with regard to the conduct of the Brookside
supervisor who said to one of the nine Brook-
side boys who was apprehended with a
bleeding hand, "Let the little bugger bleed
to death", as reported in the Cobourg Sen-
tincl-Star of September 4?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Speaker,
I could answer a portion of this from memory
but I would rather not trust my memory on
some of the details. Of course, I cannot
answer a portion of it because it refers to a
news report which I have not seen.
I am sure too, Mr. Speaker, that on think-
ing it over the hon. member would feel that
the third part of his question, which reads:
"Has any disciplinary action been taken with
respect to the conduct of the Brookside super-
visor who said to one of the nine boys"—
that in all fairness it should read, "who, it is
'alleged', said to one of the boys", because
the hon. member is referring to a press report
and this has not been established as a fact
yet.
I will take the question as notice and get
as much information as I can for the hon.
member.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wind-
sor-Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the hon.
Minister of Trade and Development. Have
any formal proposals been submitted by OHC
to CMHC for the sale of the homes in the
Bridgeview subdivision in Windsor? If not,
when will these formal proposals be sub-
mitted?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, no fonnal
proposals have been submitted by the Ontario
Housing Corporation to Central Mortgage
and Housing Corporation, regarding the pur-
chase by tenants of homes in the Bridge-
view subdivision in Windsor, but officials of
the corporations have had a number of dis-
cussions concerning this particular develop-
ment.
As the hon. member knows, this develop-
ment is on a fixed rental rather than a rent-
to-income basis and, as such, is different
to the Guelph Green Meadows subdivision.
I have already indicated that the Guelph
project will be studied very carefully and
the results of this study will, undoubtedly,
influence further extension of the tenant pur-
chase plan into other municipalities in
Ontario.
The hon. member can be assured that, in
consultation with Central Mortgage and
Housing Corporation, the tenant purchase
plan will be implemented wherever it is con-
sidered to be practical in relation to the cir-
cumstances which apply to any given
municipality.
Perhaps I can enlarge on that and say
that, as you recognize, there are different cir-
cumstances in all municipalities, the reference
of shortage of public housing, so forth and
so on. We want to make sure when we make
a deal that we make it in the interest of the
tenants and the municipality.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question of the Minister. Does
this Bridgeview project qualify under the
tenant purchase plan, as is without any
amendments to the federal Act?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, in a way it would.
The only thing is, as I said, that they are
on a fixed rental. A number of those people
have been living there at a very low rent
for many years and their income has gone up
—but they have not been put on a rent-to-
geared-income basis. This brings in some
complications because they should be able
140
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to now go out and buy in another develop-
ment, such as in the HOME programme.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if I may,
for a point of clarification. It then qualifies
under the tenant purchase plan without any
amendments to the federal Act?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I would say so at the
moment. Yes.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
of the Minister a second supplementary and
that is, is the Minister aware of the neces-
sity for major repairs in some of these homes
as a result of the indecision on the sale of
the homes?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, I am aware of that
but I think you are also aware that some of
those people living there are earning $8,000,
$10,000, $12,000, $13,000 a year. If they
have let the places run down while they
have a subsidized rent, I think also they have
a responsibility to fix the places up.
However, I might say that under the
agreement we have in Green Meadows, we
state that we will go in and make an estimate
of what repairs are required to put the
houses in good order without having to re-
build them, and I think we would do the
same thing in Windsor if we sold the prop-
erty.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the Minister of Financial and Com-
mercial Affairs. Does the Minister intend to
order that a hearing be held to determine if
the Allstate Company should be allowed to
continue to sell health insurance in this prov-
ince, as requested by me during the Minister's
estimates?
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Finan-
cial and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker,
my intention, as is now the case, is to have
the superintendent of insurance continue his
surveillance of this entire area.
As I have already informed the hon. mem-
ber in the past, the superintendent of in-
surance has been directed to review in detail
this type of policy, and to establish whether
such policies are in fact in the public interest.
Mr. Shulman: Would the Minister accept
a supplementary question? Inasmuch as it
was some months ago that the Minister gave
such instructions to the superintendent of
insurance, has the superintendent of insurance
as yet found the time to make this review,
and if so, what has he decided?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: The superintendent
has not been idle since the House adjourned
towards the end of July. As a matter of fact,
early in September, this matter was raised
and discussed with the superintendents of
insurance at their annual meeting here in
Toronto, and has been the subject of investi-
gations and study by the superintendent, not
only in this jurisdiction but in other jurisdic-
tions in Canada as well.
Mr. Shulman: Well what is the decision?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I wonder, Mr.
Speaker, if I may raise a point of order to
obtain some information from you. Is it fair
to ask you, sir, as to whether these questions
are asked in numerical order?
The reason I say that is because I have
two questions before me, the first which has
been answered, numbered 101, and the sec-
ond numbered 116. Does that simply mean
that as far as this Minister is concerned, or
any other Minister that may similarly be
involved, there is a waiting period of 15
questions between the first question he is
asked to reply to and the second question?
I say there are certain normal comforts in-
volved in situations of this kind that confront
all of us from time to time; it is just a
matter of knowing where we stand, sir, if I
may.
Mr. Speaker: I would be delighted to
answer that. The hon. Minister, of course,
and all members of the Treasury bench, are
expected to be in their places in this House
when the House is sitting. The number on
the question shows the order in which the
question was received in the Speaker's office
and entered. It has nothing to do with the
order in which they were called here.
I would find it very difficult indeed to
arrange to have the questions of any Minis-
ter asked by all the members at the same
time. It would be bedlam.
At the moment, we have proceeded fairly
reasonably by confining it to all questions
by one member at the same time. In fact, it
has greatly improved on the original set up
earlier in the last session when we did not
do that.
I have no objection whatsoever, and the
hon. Minister of Social and Family Services
arranged it as such yesterday; if I know
that a Minister has to leave or a member has
to leave, and would be most pleased to
juggle the questions in my hands and the
order of the members who pop up, to give
precedence—
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
141
Mr. Nixon: Or he can always raise his
hand.
Mr. Speaker: —so far as I am concerned—
within reason. First of all the leader of the
Opposition places all his questions first and
then the leader of the New Democratic
Party, and if there are questions left from
another day, they are asked.
Then, within reason, and particularly when
the beginning of the Throne Debate is not
on and the Prime Minister is usually here, I
endeavour to have the Prime Minister's ques-
tions asked. After that, it is as the members
catch the Speaker's eye, whose gaze wanders
almost automatically from one of the Opposi-
tion parties to the other so that they may
have a fair split of the time for questions.
I trust that answers the hon. Treasurer's
inquiry and the next member to have the
floor of the House—
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, if
1 may, just pursue it again: Say that I am
quite confident that most Ministers want to
be in their seats to pursue the questions and
the question period. I do suggest, though—
Mr. Sargent: He is out of order, Mr.
Speaker.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: No, I do not
think I am out of order in addressing Mr.
Speaker-
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister is speak-
ing on a point of order.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: I just simply want
to suggest to you, sir, and to the members
of the House, that there are certain Ministers
involved in other work on behalf of the gov-
ernment of the people of the province. I
have reference to Treasury board, which re-
quires a small quorum before the work of
Treasury board could be proceeded with. I
just simply want, if I may, sir, in pursuance
of this matter to suggest to you that I am
delighted to hear you say that there may be
certain priority given to the answers to ques-
tions. I will be pleased to take this up with
your honour personally, if I may.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out to
the hon. Minister that the most important
part of the legislative assembly of Ontario
is this House sitting here and not the Treasury
board. I, however, do realize that the hon.
Minister has a good point, because we all
realize that these other matters have to be
dealt with. I will do my best, Mr. Treasurer,
to endeavour to arrange for those Ministers
who must be elsewhere, and those members
who must be elsewhere, to have their ques-
tions asked, but you will understand with
some 38 questions today and some ten left
from yesterday, the question period must be
long and there either must be a limit on the
number of questions, a limit on the time, or
else we have to accept the problems which
we have here.
Has the hon. member for High Park com-
pleted his supplementary questions?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Treas-
urer rose on a point of order as I was putting
my supplementary question and the Minister
did not have an opportunity to reply. The
question was: What was the decision, Mr.
Minister?
Hon. Mr. Rowntrce: A decision has not
l>een made. The point I am advancing to the
hon. member for High Park is that on an
examination of this question of health in-
surance I think that the question involved
in this specific matter really involves a con-
sideration of the large variety of so-called
health insurance policies and whether or
not they indeed are in the public interest.
Mr. Shulman: When can we expect a deci-
sion, Mr. Minister?
Hon. Mr. Rowntrec: At the earliest possible
time.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member for
Hamilton East would now place Ins question?
Perhaps the first one might be to the Treas-
urer.
Mr. R. Cisborn (Hamilton East): Yes, Mr.
Speaker, a question of the Treasurer. How
many Ontario government employees are con-
sidered eligible to be members of the Civil
Service Association of Ontario, and how many
are at present paying dues to the CSAO?
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker, the
answer to part one of the hon. member's
question is 47,168; and to part two, slightly
in excess of 36,000.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has a fur-
ther question of the Minister of Lands and
Forests?
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Might
we suspend proceedings while the Treasurer
leaves?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamil-
ton East has another question?
Mr. Gisborn: For the Minister of Lands
and Forests:
142
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
What progress is being made to acquire
lands to establish the Fifty Point Park in
Saltfleet township?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member
for Hamilton East, negotiations are still pro-
ceeding with reference to this property.
Mr. Gisborn: May I ask a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker?
Has it been six or seven years since the
government first promised action on this park,
and is it correct that the price per acre has
risen from $1,500 to $7,000 at the present
time?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: As I mentioned, Mr.
Speaker, this matter is still active. We are
still proceeding with negotiations and the
matter is coming up at the next meeting of
the Parks Integration Board. It is quite true
that the price has risen considerably from the
original price.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy
River.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Agri-
culture and Food.
Will the Minister provide any assistance,
perhaps in the form of an extension of the
adverse weather assistance programme, to the
farmers of the Rainy River district due to the
extraordinarily heavy rainfall in that area
this year?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have
every sympathy for the farmers of the Rainy
River district. During the second week of
September, on the members' tour of northern
Ontario, I availed myself of the opportunity
to visit many of the farmers in that area and
I found that most of their crops were still in
the field. As a matter of fact those few good
days that pertained during our visit to north-
ern Ontario allowed them to get some of the
crops harvested.
There has been considerable loss in some
areas, particularly in the flat or low lying
areas or the undrained areas. Others have
been fairly well harvested. We have been in
constant touch with our agricultural repre-
sentative in that area since that time and he
tells me that about 50 per cent of the crop
seems to have been harvested in those poorer
areas and most of the crop harvested in the
well-drained areas.
Because crop insurance was available last
year up there and some farmers did take
crop insurance, I find it very difficult to justify
making assistance available, or recommending
to the government that adverse weather assist-
ance be made available, to the farmers who
did not buy crop insurance when it was avail-
able to them.
Mr. T. P. Reid: May I ask the Minister a
supplementary question?
Is the Minister aware that this has been an
extraordinarily heavy rainfall this year and
even those areas that are usually well drained
have not been cleared of the water? Is the
Minister aware that the crop insurance plan,
being a new concept to the Rainy River dis-
trict farmers, was not well publicized and
well understood and therefore most of the
farmers did not take advantage of the crop
insurance this year?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
answer as to whether or not the crop insur-
ance programme was understood, but it was
well advertised. It was advertised in all of
the local papers; it was advertised on radio;
ever>' promotional aspect that could be enter-
tained was entertained in promoting crop
insurance in that area. If farmers decide in
their own best interests not to buy crop in-
surance, it is not the government's prerogative
to force it on them, and I feel that under the
circumstances it is difficult to expand and
provide a crop insurance programme for
farmers if they do not buy it themselves.
Mr. Nixon: It sounds as if that insurance
programme is more use to the government
than it is to the farmers.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: It is not more use to me
and I take exception to that because there
are farmers-
Mr. Nixon: That is the second time you
have leaned on that weak reed.
Hon. Mr. Stewart: In one part of that area
up there there was one farmer who was get-
ting $1,000 in payment. Do you say that we
should go out and pay the other farmers-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. Minister will
take his seat. The hon. member for Rainy
River has a further question of the Minister
of Lands and Forests.
Mr. T. P. Reid: I must say I disagree with
the Minister of Agriculture on that last state-
ment.
I have a question for the Minister of Lands
and Forests. Will the Minister extend the
dates for hearings on the future of Algonquin
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
143
Park due to the delay in sending reports of
the multi-purpose study of the area?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in reply
to the hon. member for Rainy River, in view
of the importance of Algonquin Park and the
interest of the public in it, we want to allow
the fullest possible time, and we will receive
submissions up until the end of this year,
December 31.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Would the Minister accept
a supplementary question? People have writ-
ten to the department asking for this multi-
purpose study and have not yet received it.
Is the Minister aware of this going on in
his office, that these people have not been
able to receive their copies of this study?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, is the
member referring to this probational master
plan?
Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We have copies avail-
able and if people will write to us and en-
close $1 we will be pleased to submit one.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Thank you,
sir. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Transport.
Would the Minister advise whether, in
reply to the question of the member for
Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) on
Thursday, November 21, relative to amend-
ment of The Highway Traffic Act to permit
discretionary powers in magistrates to grant
intermittent licence suspension, the Minister
was advising this House that he had no legal
power to propose such legislation relative to
charges instituted pursuant to The Criminal
Code of Canada?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, the answer
is "no," and I did not so state. I intimated
to the hon. member at that time that I under-
stood the conviction was under the Criminal
Code and that the action taken by the magis-
trate was under appeal. For my part, I pre-
fer to await the outcome of that appeal
before contemplating any action.
Mr. Bullbrook: Would the Minister enter-
tain a supplementary question?
Do I correctly assume then, notwith-
standing the words that the Minister gave
the other day and the obvious inference from
those words, that he is now waiting an
appeal? Has the appeal been instituted?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, I inti-
mated I understood it had been taken.
Mr. Bullbrook: Can the Minister assure us
it has been instituted? His answer is that he
is waiting for an appeal that has not yet been
instituted.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: I stand corrected if I
said it has been taken; I said I understood
it had been, and I think if it has not been,
it will be.
Mr. Bullbrook: The Minister can now
assure that it is going to be appealed?
Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion for the Attorney General, which perhaps
has been partly answered by his announce-
ment at the commencement of this period.
"When The Provincial Judges Act is pro-
claimed on December 8," my question said,
but it appears it is going to be proclaimed
on December 2:
(a) How many magistrates, deputy magis-
trates and juvenile court judges will become
provincial judges?
(b) How many will not become provincial
judges?
(c) What are the names of those who will
not be appointed?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I think a
good many of these items were answered in
the statement. The Act is The Provincial
Courts Act, if I may draw attention to the
title, and has been proclaimed as of Decem-
ber 2; this was done some days ago. The
statement I made today was just to draw
attention of the public, and members of the
House too, to the proclamation of the Act
and some of the consequences of its being
brought into effect.
To answer specifically, The Provincial
Courts Act, 1968, as I have said, comes into
effect on December 2. One hundred and
thirty of the present bench will become full-
time members of the court, and 12 present
part-time magistrates and juvenile and family
court judges will become part-time judges of
the provincial court for a period which will
end on April 30 of next year.
I would like to expand a little bit on that.
We are doing this arrangement with the part-
time judges simply as a transitional device to
get over the period until we can get fully
equipped with judges who will serve full-
time both on the criminal side and the family
side of the court. We have a number of excel-
lent magistrates— not too many— who have
served on a part-time basis over a period of
144
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
years, and I have been doing my best to
persuade those who are left to go full-time,
or go back full-time to law practice. Rut after
this transitional period, I think we can work
it out by April 30 next year, we hope we will
have full-time judges completely.
Questions (b) and (c): Eight county court
judges, who have been judges in the juvenile
and family courts, will not be appointed to
the provincial court. They are judges now,
of course. These judges are Judges Fuller,
Anderson, Leach, Cavers, Smith, Richardson,
Darby and Rrickenden.
Mr. Singer: By way of a supplementary, do
I understand from the Minister's answer that
all of the present magistrates, deputy magis-
trates and juvenile court judges except the
ones he has named are being reappointed?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, the part-time ones
only on that basis up to April 30, when we
will either ask them in that period to leave
the bench,' if they and we do not agree, or
where we can work it out we will keep them
full-time. This is a transitional feature.
Mr. Singer: Does this apply, again by way
of a supplementary, to those deputy magis-
trates who are serving in the county of York
and perhaps in other places as well?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, I think that is
correct.
Mr. Singer: They are now going to be
provincial judges?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes.
Mr. Singer: Again by way of supplement-
ary, have these appointments been referred
to the Judicial Council? Have they been con-
sulted in the making of these appointments?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, we have not; it
was not our intention that they should be.
We have refrained so far as possible from
making any recent appointments consistent
with keeping the administration of justice
up to the mark. But any appointments from
December 2 on will be referred to the
Judicial Council.
Surely the hon. member is not suggesting
that the magistrates who have served on the
bench— I think we discussed this in our
debate on the Act— .should now be relieved
of the magistrate's positon by reference to
the Judicial Council.
Mr. Singer: No, I was not suggesting that,
but I was suggesting that the Minister had
an ideal opportunity to do some house-
cleaning which apparently he has missed.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is just what the
member is suggesting then, that magistrates
who have served on the bench for some
time, by reference to the Judicial Council,
could be dispensed with. I thought we de-
bated this. In any event, if we were to
debate it now, I would not accept it.
Mr. Singer: This is probably not the right
time for debate, Mr. Speaker. I would like
to pursue it, and I will, at a later time.
I have a second question: I have some diffi-
culty with this one, Mr. Speaker, because you
edited it and you took out part 1, and with-
out part 1, part 2 by itself does not make
too much sense.
Mr. Speaker: I would think that it makes
sense. Part 1 was quite improper in my view.
Mr. Singer: We will try it in any event,
as the member for Riverdale (Mr. J. Renwick)
suggests.
Does the Attorney General approve of the
procedure in the case against Garry H. Perly,
now being heard by Magistrate Tupper S.
Bigelow, which in accordance with the magis-
trate's order is being conducted in this
manner? And the manner was referred to in
part 1 which has been deleted, but hopefully
the Attorney General knows the manner that
I was referring to.
Part 2: Does the Attorney General intend
to take any action to prevent such occur-
rences in the future? If so, what action will
be taken?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to answer it this way: I would prefer
not to discuss very fully at this moment a
case which is still before the court. Of course,
I am fully aware of what is going on. The
magistrate has found in this particular case—
which apparently is going to take a very
long time with a very difficult person before
him— that to hear it, to devote all the energies
of the court and time of the court to it,
would delay a great many very important
cases which are before him. He has taken
the procedure of hearing it-
Mr. Singer: Half an hour a week.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: —in portions.
Mr. Ben: How about the 45 to 50 days
that the Smith Brothers took?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Just a moment. The
member will have my full answer in a
moment.
As I say, I would rather not go into de-
tail in discussing the case now. I think when
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
145
that case is concluded, if it goes very long
before it is concluded, it will be reviewed
by the chief magistrate there, and if neces-
sary by my office. The magistrate, in the
conduct of his court, has a certain discretion
with which I do not lightly interfere.
Mr. Singer: By way of a supplementary,
while I can appreciate that, surely the Attor-
ney General will agree that this kind of pro-
cedure is punishing an accused in advance.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Without getting into an
argument, I am not sure that the punishment
is perhaps all being imposed on one side of
this case.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member for
Nipissing, who has been very patient.
Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): I have a ques-
tion for the Minister of Highways:
1. What progress has been made on the
4.2-mile Gravenhurst bypass project under
project numbers 245-60-2; 246-60-1 and 2;
and 247-60-1 and 2?
2. What contracts have been made under
this project?
3. Will this construction be completed
during this fiscal year as announced last
spring?
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, had I known it would be 4
o'clock when I got up to answer this ques-
tion I could have had the answer, but I will
have to take it as notice now.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, there is a ques-
tion of the hon. Minister of Transport if he
has an answer for me.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, construc-
tion zone speed limits are applied to meet
the needs of The Department of Highways,
and the signing approved by order in coun-
cil in each case is done by The Department
of Highways in accordance with The High-
way Traffic Act, section 59, subsection 11 (a)
and 11 (b).
With respect to the second part of the
member's question, the answer is "no."
Part 3: The specific construction zone
speed limits and the duration of enforce-
ment in each case is likewise the responsi-
bility of The Department of Highways, and
I understand that my colleague the Minister
of Highways is prepared to provide the
further specific information requested.
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, construc-
tion work on the Queen Elizabeth Way in
the vicinity of the new interchanges at Kip-
ling Avenue and Islington Avenue will be
completed in approximately one month's
time, and the 45-mile-per-hour speed limit
signs will be removed on this section. How-
ever, in the immediate vicinity of the QEW-
Highway 27 interchange, where work is still
in progress, the construction speed limit
signs will remain in force. Our practice is
not inconsistent with the statement made by
my colleague to the House on April 7. The
hon. member asks:
Why is the same speed limit maintained
at all times whether or not construction is
in progress instead of being adjusted to
actual conditions, particularly at weekends
when construction work ceases?
Because of the ever-changing location of the
construction areas, it is most difficult to main-
tain at all times construction speed zone signs
consistent with road conditions on all con-
struction contracts. A concerted effort is
being made to ensure that construction speed
zoning is realistic, and when conditions war-
rant, to have the speed zone signs removed
at nights and on weekends.
Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to ques-
tion 89 asked by the member for Thunder
Bay yesterday. It is:
In my letter of July 17, 1968, I informed
the hon. member that we would go ahead
with the pre-engineering for the prospective
reconstruction of the road, which had been
programmed. I explained that I was unable
to be specific, but that we would arrange
schedules of construction consistent with
comparative priorities and available funds.
During 1964 to 1967 inclusive, 16 accidents
occurred on the road, giving an accident
rate of 1.0 per million vehicle miles of travel
over that period. This corresponds with an
average of 2.6 for all King's Highways in
the province; 3.6 for all secondary highways,
and 5.8 for all of Ontario's roads and streets.
Evidently Highway 585 was just about as
safe a road as could be driven on during
1964 to 1967.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day yesterday we were dis-
cussing the celebration of the 150th anni-
versary of the birth of George Brown, which
will be on Friday next. In the intervening
hours I have had an opportunity to meet
with the leader of the Opposition and the
leader of the New Democratic Party, and we
have come to an agreement, and perhaps I
can tell the House how we would like to
observe this, the 150th anniversary of the
146
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
birth of this very famous Canadian Parlia-
mentarian.
In the Toronto Necropolis and Cemetery at
200 Winchester Street, Toronto, where George
Brown is buried, there will be a short
memorial service and wreath laying ceremony
at 9 o'clock on Friday, November 29. In
attendance there will be myself, the leader
of the Opposition and the leader of the New
Democratic Party, some officials and students
from the George Brown College of Applied
Arts and Technology. Any members of this
House and the public who would like to join
us will be very welcome on that occasion.
At 10 o'clock this House will meet and
there will be addresses in recognition of Mr.
Brown by myself, by the leader of the Oppo-
sition, by the leader of the New Democratic
Party, and by any other members of the
House who would like to observe this occa-
sion.
Following that, and with the approval of
the House, it is planned that we will then
adjourn and go to the platform erected at the
front steps of the building and close by there
is a statue of George Brown. We would hope
to be out there by 11 o'clock on Friday morn-
ing. There will be the regimental bands of
the Lome Scots, a good Scottish regiment;
a guard of honour to be inspected will be
commanded by Captain I. Kirkwood; the
regimental band will be conducted by Cap-
tain E. Corlett. The pipes and drums will
also be in attendance. The civil service choir
will lead the singing and perform numbers.
The Ontario Provincial Police will provide a
detail under the command of Inspector Don-
ald Atam. They will escort a group from the
platform to the monument of George Brown
where a wreath will be placed on behalf of
the legislative assembly. Representatives of
the student body of George Brown College of
Applied Arts and Technology will deposit a
wreath. Rev. Dr. Ross K. Cameron, a former
moderator of the Presbyterian Church in
Canada will be the officiating clergyman.
There will be some 1,500 to 2,500 students
from the George Brown College and pupils
from schools in the immediate vicinity, and
such other members of the public who may
wish to come. We hope that the people will
attend this ceremony. Certainly they are all
more than welcome as we will gather to do
honour to a very famous Canadian statesman.
Mr. W. M. Mclntyre, Secretary of the
Cabinet, has been co-ordinating this entire
programme, assisted by various persons work-
ing under his direction, including Mr. John
Cozens, the leader of the civil service choir.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Sir,
may I beg the indulgence of the House. I
would like to call the third order, which is
second reading of Bill 2, an Act to amend
The Municipal Act. This bill is a technical
one involving the municipal elections which
will be held early next month. If it can be
given second reading this afternoon in com-
mittee of the whole, and third reading, then
I would hope that it will receive Royal Assent
this week in order that we may make the
necessary arrangements with the municipali-
ties.
THE MUNICIPAL ACT
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Mu-
nicipal Affairs) moves second reading of
Bill 2, An Act to amend The Municipal Act.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion ) : With the assurance of the Premier of
the rather specific requirements of this par-
ticular statute, I feel that any comments that
we might want to make on changes in the
election procedures at the municipal level
might be made on another occasion, and we
have no objection to it being put without
notice.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
Clerk of the House: The third order;
House in committee of the whole, Mr. A. E.
Reuter in the chair.
Mr. Chairman: Hon. members, before I
assume the chair, may I just take a few
moments to express my thanks to all hon.
members for their support in returning me
to this position. I want to say a special word
of thanks to the hon. Prime Minister, to the
hon. leader of the Opposition and to the hon.
member for York South, leader of the New
Democratic Party, for their very kind words.
During those words, I thought of some of
the occasions during the first session on which
I was called upon to make some rulings. I
must say that on those occasions, after num-
erous of them, I am very, very surprised to
find myself in this position again because I
do realize full well that there was some dis-
satisfaction on both sides of the House with
some of those rulings.
However, it seems to me that Parliament,
being as old as it is, going back to the year
1295, that a great deal has evolved over
those years. It seems to me that the purpose
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
X47
of Parliament is for reasonable people, men
and women, to gather together to resolve
their problems in a responsible and dignified
manner.
The committee of the whole House was
founded, I think, approximately in the year
1607, and I found it very interesting to note
the reason why the committee of the whole
House procedure was adopted.
It seems that in the early days of Parlia-
ment, Mr. Speaker was regarded as a direct
representative of the monarchy and to some
extent, this restrained the members of the
Commons from free discussion. Therefore,
the committee of the whole was developed in
order that there could be a member of the
Commons appointed to chair the committee.
Now, with that thought in mind, it lias
always been my belief that there should be
freer discussion in committee and that while
we do have rules that have been built up and
taken from Westminster, it seems to me that
particularly in Ontario, those rides have not
been revised for a long while but it seems, in
committee, that we can afford to judge the
circumstances as they arise.
If it is necessary to bend those rules just a
little to suit those circumstances I think this
would tend to a much more dignified and
orderly procedure while we are in committee.
In any event, I am very grateful to be here
again, to work with my good friends, Mr.
Lewis, Mr. Common and Mr. Young and I
am sure I will find it pleasurable again to
work with Mr. Speaker, as his deputy.
Again, I want to express my sincere grati-
tude for your support in returning me to this
chair.
THE MUNICIPAL ACT
House in committee on Bill 2, An Act to
amend The Municipal Act.
Section 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Munic-
ipal Affairs): Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to
say that section 1 of the bill really has noth-
ing to do with section 2.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): We have car-
ried it.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: You have carried it.
You should understand what you are doing.
I am not sure that I do. I think you have to
have-
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): That is not our problem.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is not your prob-
lem; you are not interested, I will not tell
you. It is just technical.
Bill 2 reported.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the committee
of the whole House rise and report one bill
without amendment.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of the whole House begs to report one bill
without amendment and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
THIRD READING
The following bill was given third reading
upon motion:
Bill 2, An Act to amend The Municipal Act.
Clerk of the House: The first order, resum-
ing the adjourned debate on the motion for
an address in reply to the speech of the hon.
the Lieutenant-Governor at the opening of
the session.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, I was surprised at the
energetic objection taken by the Minister of
Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) a few
moments ago during the question period
when I interjected a comment in his answer.
He was being questioned about the possibility
of government assistance to those farmers in
two areas of the province that have suffered
unnatural weather hindrance and damage
during the recent crop season.
His reason for not going ahead with the
recommendation to the Cabinet for such
assistance in both cases was that die farmers
had crop insurance available, and, therefore,
he did not see fit to recommend the assistance
that had been forthcoming in years gone by
under these similar circumstances.
I interjected that I felt the crop insurance
programme was, therefore, more useful to the
government than to the farmers because
148
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
surely the Minister himself knows that in
most areas of the province less than 5 per
cent of the farmers concerned have, for
reasons that surely they find good and suffi-
cient, availed themselves of the coverage
that is available under the provincial-federal
joint crop insurance programme.
It could be that it is too expensive; that it
lias not been properly put for their considera-
tion and, in fact, that they are prepared to
take the risks as long as they feel that the
representatives of the Legislature, in matters
and circumstances of great catastrophe, are
prepared to take the steps that have been
taken in years gone by, to provide the reason-
able assistance that has been forthcoming.
I remember very well, when the bill that
implemented crop insurance was discussed,
saying that I expected the Minister would use
this as a crutch for getting out of the
responsibilities that had been governmental
for so many years. We now find that this is
precisely the purpose of The Crop Insurance
Act as it is administered in the province of
Ontario.
It appears to be one the serious short-
comings in the attitude taken by the Minis-
ter and his chief, the Premier, who is good
enough to indicate his views on the whole
matter— that he feels the farmers are properly
served.
Now surely it is most worthy when we
see that this crop insurance programme is
quite heavily subsidized at the federal level;
that the government of Ontario has not seen
fit to match that subsidy; that it still is an
expensive proposition for the farmers; and
that they have not seen fit to avail themselves
of the limited protection that is forthcoming.
Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity last
night to be present at the opening of a new
school in a town in my constituency. It was
a very uplifting experience with a good
number of young people taking part.
I had an opportunity to talk to those
present, not only the young people but some
others, and to be much impressed with a
broader, let us say reaction, to provincial,
national and world affairs than perhaps I
have been subjected to in former circum-
stances.
I cannot help but think that it has been the
coverage of the news media on certain events
in recent months that has brought forward
this sort of reaction, particularly from young
people.
You may recall, sir, a news clip that was
carried on almost every television station
that is available to us in this part of Ontario,
showing the summary execution of a North
Vietnamese soldier— a young man who was
simply put to death by his captor pointing
a pistol at the top of his head and blowing
it off. This was earned on news programmes
repeatedly and had a tremendous impact, I
think, on public opinion as to the events that
had been taking place there— perhaps with-
out the same involvement of public conscience
up until that time.
I do not want to spend time on that other
than as an example of one of these conscience
stirring events which got to the masses, as
citizens of Ontario, in this way.
Probably the second event that had as big
or even bigger impact was the pictures car-
ried of the starving children in Biafra, which
do not have to be described, I am sure, for
every member to conjure up the image in his
own mind.
Once again, the conscience of us all, as
citizens of the province, was deeply stirred
and there was a very personal feeling that, as
individuals, something had to be done to
counteract this terrible and inhumane situa-
tion. In my view, not enough has been done,
but we, in the province of Ontario, through
the government, are contributing, I under-
stand, $70,000 towards the relief of the
situation, and citizens have had an oppor-
tunity to take part themselves.
This should be dealt with at greater length,
there is no doubt about it. It appears that
part of the stirring of the conscience of the
individuals is followed by the settling out
of the conscience in rather short order when
what may have been a very immediate con-
cern to the individual is replaced by some-
thing else a few days later— and the heat is
off those with responsibility to take action.
I think this is something we must be aware
of, and we must see that our reactions are
humane and based on our conscience, but
are responsible and continuing, so that we
simply have a greater part to play in the
affairs as they come in. The last item of
this nature, one that was brought to me
as the local representative last night by two
or three young people, were pictures carried
in the press and on television of the unfor-
tunate little girl who died on October 10,
allegedly as a result of a fall, but which is
suspected as being the result of perhaps some
other circumstances.
I am sure you can all recall the picture
of the smiling young face with the bruise.
Once again, our conscience was stirred; it
was difficult to know what should be done,
but the fact remains. These things and the
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
149
background associated with them, are a part
of life, not in the world at large as a global
village, as Marshall McLuhan described it,
but in our own backyard, and the realization
that inhumanity among our own neighbours,
among ourselves, is a real part of even the
enlightened modern life.
The last thing I want is to attribute respon-
sibility for any of these cases to individuals
here, but really in following up and examin-
ing the events of last week and the role of
The Department of Social and Family Serv-
ices, in the care of young children, I had
reached some conclusions that I now wish to
place before you.
I want to speak briefly about The Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services in con-
nection with child welfare, and stress the
need to improve the services in this area. We
have seen how, in the last year, the depart-
ment refused for most of the year to agree
to the budget of the children's aid societies
and how by its action forced these societies
into a desperate position. With the excep-
tion of I believe two of the province's
societies, the province and the children's aid
societies disagreed on the operating budget
and in these cases, the societies had to cut
down on what they needed.
Let us see what these cuts mean to On-
tario's children. First, let me say that the
research on this subject was done with great
hardship, because the Minister's office or the
people under his direction, have warned
societies that they are not to discuss pro-
grammes financed by the government with-
out clearing such discussions with the
department. This is an unheard of abuse by
the department and it is sheer hyprocrisy
for the members opposite, to deliberately
spike any investigation of the use of gov-
ernment money.
My hon. friends across the aisle may not
believe it, but they do not own this province,
and the money they spend is given them in
trust for the people of this province. There-
fore, I submit they have an obligation to
ensure that programmes under their care are
closely scrutinized, in fact, they should wel-
come such scrutiny. I warn them that they
are playing a serious game.
The taxpayers of Ontario will not allow
nervous Ministers to use the Legislature in
this manner and we will not tolerate such
high-handedness. Furthermore, they will have
to face up to the fact that this is not a
police state. There are in Ontario men and
women who will speak when and as they
see fit, in the public interest, no matter what
threats are made by the department.
The children's aid societies, in the past
three years, have come to a new understand-
ing of the nature of the children in their
care. They realize that these are not children
who have lost their home and parents and
come out magically unscathed. They are
children who have suffered, sometimes over
long periods of time, from inadequate physi-
cal and emotional nourishment. When many
of them come to the attention of the chil-
dren's aid societies they are badly damaged,
frequently emotionally disturbed. Therefore,
the old concept that a run-of-the-mill foster
home would give them what they need is
becoming out of date.
It is now understood that foster homes
must be picked with more care than was
formerly the case and that most of all, they
must be supported, not with more money to
the parents necessarily, but with more and
better services that cost real money.
Good foster parents are not content with
having an unskilled aid drop in on them once
every three months, to find out how things
are. They expect that they will be treated
as part of the treatment team, that there
will be a treatment team to give the child
all kinds of care from straightening teeth to
psychotherapy. In addition to the children
who can use carefully chosen and supervised
foster care, there are other arrangements
being made, various types of group homes
for example.
Finally, there are children who need insti-
tutional care, and in this regard it is inter-
esting to note that the Health Minister's
grandiose plan, presented here nearly two
years ago with such flourish, is probably
most noted for its silent demise. The socie-
ties can term only Brown Camps for the
facilities, on a private basis, that must be
part of provincial services.
Another responsibility which the province
give the children's aid societies, is for the
care of unwed mothers and their children.
The province handsomely pays the cost of
the care of the child, but makes almost no
provision for the emotional care of the
mother, and this at a time when the ili-
gitimacy rates, particularly among young
mothers, are on the increase, nor does it
make provision for her after-care whether or
not she keeps the child. The department
sloughs off its responsibility to the mother
to a network of church homes, and in every
important respect, leaves the young mother,
150
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
often a needy, sometimes disturbed, child
herself, to a catch as catch can system.
Thirdly, children's aid societies are respon-
sible for protection of children who are being
malnourished either physically or mentally by
their parents. Every person sitting here to-
day has read with agony, the experience of
battered children, yet much of this suffering
can be alleviated by societies with adequate
staff and facilities to offer families who, for
whatever reason, do not properly care for
their children.
As the session progresses, I can assure the
Minister, that we here will be expanding on
what I have said. In spite of whatever at-
tempts he may make to stifle investigations
on the department in its working, we will be
watching both closely. Let me just say this
for now, the province is starving societies
who are trying to do a good job. There is no
agency in this province that is getting from
the provincial government, the money it
needs to do the job it should be doing.
Furthermore, it is under constant harass-
ment by the Minister and his department,
first, with the threat of further cuts in money,
and secondly with the threat of a provincial
take-over, the possibility which can only lead
to worse service if one is to judge by the
department records to date.
The Minister is not present, but I would
like to put a few questions on the record for
his perusal. First, are the budgets of chil-
dren's aid societies to be cut in the coming
year, so that the department can pass on the
fiscal nightmare and make it the nightmare
of others? Secondly, what does the Minister
plan to do so that agencies will learn at the
beginning of the year and not near the end,
exactly what money will be available?
Thirdly, particularly in view of the fact that
eight people have left the child welfare
branch in the last year, is the Minister con-
sidering taking over voluntary children's aid
societies?
John Doe, a great educator, once said that
what the best and wisest parents want for
their own child, the community must want
for all its children. If the treatment of chil-
dren's aid societies by the present government
were to be taken as a guide, we would have
to conclude that we do not want much for
our youngsters.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my
remarks by making some comments on the
upcoming constitutional conference. I re-
ferred to it earlier in my remarks by chastis-
ing the Premier and his advisers for appearing
to threaten the government of Canada with
opting out of these discussions— it is a fact-
opting out of these discussions, unless there
were some more reasonable accommodation
to the government's other requirements. There
is no doubt that this is the attitude taken by
the government, at least interpreted in news
reports that were available to me and to the
citizens of this province.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this matter
is far too important to be treated as an ancil-
lary project in our effort to gain a larger
share of federal abatement. There are some
matters of great concern that will be, I am
sure, discussed in a responsible way at the
conference that is to be held in the middle of
December.
At the top of the agenda, must surely be
the proposal to entrench a bill of rights in the
constitution of our nation, and pass ancillary
companion legislation in the provincial Legis-
lature. This is something that I felt was not
treated seriously by the Ontario administra-
tion when it was proposed by the then Min-
ister of Justice. I hope that we will take
another look at the situation, and be prepared
to support the proposals from whatever
source they may come.
I personally believe that we must take very
definite steps to at least set in motion, pro-
cedures which will eventually repatriate the
constitution of our nation. There are those
who are quick to say, that The British North
America Act is in fact not a constitution. It
makes an interesting argument. We must
accept the fact, that legislation from West-
minster is what actually assigns the responsi-
bilities to us as members of this House, and
those people who are elected to the
Parliament of Canada, and the Legislatures
of the other provinces.
It seems incomprehensible that we are pre-
pared to permit this state of affairs to go on
without at least attempting to bring about a
change. I well remember the debate and dis-
cussion in this House on -the Fulton-Favreau
formula for the amendment of the constitu-
tion whether or not it was kept in its position
as a statute of the government of the United
Kingdom.
There is an interesting sidelight to the book
that was published recently by Peter New-
man, "The Distemper of Our Times," in
which he indicated that even as the govern-
ment of Ontario was leading the discussion
which was supported eventually in a vote
from all sides of the House, to approve the
Fulton-Favreau formula as it might apply to
Ontario, there was an emissary from the
leader of the Conservative Party in Canada,
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
151
Mr. Diefenbaker— I stand corrected on that
matter, it was, let us say, supported by a
majority of the members of the House and
there was an emissary coming from the leader
of the Conservative Party in Canada, attempt-
ing to stop the government of Ontario from
proceeding in this way.
A minute had been provided Mr. Diefen-
b.iker indicating that, in fact, there was little
difFerence in the position taken by Mr. Fav-
reau and Mr. Fulton and that lie would be
quite in order in supporting the approach at
a federal level. But we must assume that for
political purposes he saw reason to differ
with the formula, as, I suppose, there were
other reasons for others in the Legislature
here for differing from the formula at that
time.
Whatever were the results, what had been
the results of some careful research and were
put before the Legislatures of a number of
provinces bore no fruit, and we are no nearer
now to the solution of this knotty problem
than we were in 1963 and 1964.
Now I would say that this is something
that we must come to grips with. There tends
to be a reduction in pressure for the amend-
ment of our constitution, perhaps as a result
of the Centennial fading into history, but I
think that Ontario should take the lead in
providing the alternative that should be con-
sidered by the other provinces in repatriating
our constitution and providing for a reason-
able and fair means of amending it.
I think when you look back at fairly recent
history, the former Prime Minister Louis St.
Laurent took a very practical approach to
dividing the sections of The British North
America Act into groups which would have
different means of being amended. There
were those which had only direct and super-
ficial application that would be amended by
simple majority motion of the Parliament of
Canada, and there were odier, more deeply
entrenched in the right of all our people and
the provinces themselves, which could only
be amended by complete agreement among
all the provinces.
I feel that some sort of workmanlike ap-
proach of this type would be the answer if,
in fact, we are going to maintain our support
for The British North America Act as our
constitution. There are alternatives, of
course. I, for one, believe that we should
attempt to have an amendment to the Act
passed which would remove it from its pres-
ent lodging in the Parliament at Westminster
and bring it back to Canada but this has
proved to be an insurmountable difficulty.
The British North America Act, as our con-
stitution, should be abandoned where it now
lies, and be replaced by something that is
more in keeping with our national aspirations
and needs. There is no doubt that the amend-
ment to the constitution should be accompan-
ied by a fairer distribution of revenues and
that it should contain, as well, clear distribu-
tion of responsibilities. There is no doubt
that continuing expansion of the shared cost
programme is going to lead us into greater
difficulties as far as federal and provincial
budgeting is concerned, because we know
that the Treasurer is presently sitting over in
the Frost Building chairing a meeting of the
Treasury Board.
Let us presume that someone from the Min-
istry of Social and Family Services is before
the Treasury Board and he could very readily
say that those men might approve the ex-
penditures he is putting forward since 80
per cent of the cost is being met from another
jurisdiction. At the same time, I suppose the
Treasury Board in Ottawa has the argument
put to them, when certain projects are forth-
coming, that a large part of the cost is met
by another jurisdiction and in fact they can
proceed with their approval without having
to bear the cost at 100 cents in a dollar.
The Premier is frequently heard to say
that there is only one taxpayer, and he is the
person whose welfare really does concern us
all, and I believe that the restriction in the
shared cost programme is going to be in the
best interests of the taxpayers concerned, as
well as setting out clearly the lines of re-
sponsibility which must accompany modern
programmes if they are carefully budgeted.
The last point that I would like to raise in
this matter is that as a member of this House
interested in these particular matters, I am
getting increasingly resentful that the ad-
visory committee on constitutional matters
restricts its advice to the Ministry alone. I
think that the example set by the Legislature
in Quebec should be followed here, and that
we, in this House, should constitute a stand-
ing committee on constitutional affairs and
call before it those people— and very able
people they are indeed— who presently restrict
their advice to the members of the adminis-
tration, or the Premier and those who accom-
pany him as our provincial delegation to
constitutional conferences.
I think that the more widespread involve-
ment we have in this matter, the better, and
that a standing committee of the Legislature
would be an ideal vehicle to interest the citi-
zens of our province, as well as the members
152
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of this House in what has got to be a matter
of great concern and high priority to all of
us as members.
Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity
during my reply to the motion, quite a few
days ago, for an address to the hon. the
Lieutenant Governor, to cover some matters
of great concern in this province. I have felt
that the primary importance is our need to
come to grip with budgetary difficulties that
we are experiencing in great measure in this
province.
I have mentioned some other matters as
well, and all of these have brought me to the
conclusion that the administration which is
presently conducting our affairs does not, in
fact, command the confidence either of this
House or of the people of the province.
A great deal has happened in the 12
months since the election in October 1967,
and we have revealed the unfortunate state of
affairs that has been put before you in the
last few days. And with this in mind, Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Singer,
the following amendment to the reply to the
Speech from the Throne:
That this House regrets that the govern-
ment
1. Has failed to conduct the province's
financial affairs responsibly and neglected
to cause an independent and all-embracing
study of its programmes and administrative
procedures to be made.
2. Has failed to protect tenants' rights
and to insure adequate housing for the
people of Ontario at a fair price, including
a system of permissive rent control.
3. Has neglected the proper develop-
ment of the northern part of the province
of Ontario, and by the lack of a sound
policy toward the north and its natural
resources, the government has thereby
failed to promote the economic well-being
and prosperity of all the people of Ontario.
4. Has failed to provide educational op-
portunity, facilities, and financing to insure
that all Ontario students have an equal
access to our educational institutions, and
has failed to develop an effective policy to
meet the unrest on our university campuses.
5. Has failed to provide suitable pro-
grammes which would allow our agricul-
tural community to realize their fair share
of the benefits available to other segments
of our economy.
6. Has, by its inaction, allowed the pol-
lution of air, water, and land to worsen.
7. Has failed to insure equal access to
proper medical care for all our people.
8. Has failed to plan for the proper eco-
nomic development of our province.
9. Has failed to bring about meaningful
reform to our ancient and inefficient system
of municipal government and, therefore,
diat your government does not enjoy the
confidence of this House.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, on first hearing of that rather com-
prehensive amendment, I am sure that there
are some things that have been missed and
after a night's contemplation, I am sure 1
will discover them. It is in the category of
what is sometimes referred to as the "kitchen
sink" amendment— everything is in it.
Now, in beginning a Tjhrone Speech, Mr.
Speaker, it is traditional to pay tribute to
you and to express appreciation for your con-
tribution to the business of this Legislature.
I do so with a particular feeling of sympathy
for you this year.
I think we have reached a crossroads in
the history of this Legislature in terms of
the evolution and clarification of the rules
of the House. It has become very obvious in
recent days, and perhaps never more obvious
than today, that, as we seek to restrict and
impose balanced rules on the government side
of the House— rules which I have suggested
to you privately and publicly and, therefore,
I am not saying anything new, have already
been imposed to a considerable degree on
the Opposition— that you are going to face
some considerable objections from a govern-
ment which has traditionally, from my early
days in the House, regarded the Speaker as
a puppet of their side of the House.
Indeed, I recall very distinctly an occasion
when something little short of shock appeared
on the face of the then Prime Minister when
the Speaker suggested that he was breaching
the rules of the House— he did not have the
floor and he should sit down. He was literally
shocked. No Speaker had ever told him that
he should have to live up to the rules of the
House.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Who was that?
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, I will leave you to
guess. As a matter of fact, we had something
approaching the same kind of reaction today
from the Provincial Treasurer. He is reaching
boiling point in terms of having to live up
to the rules of this House, so I repeat, Mr.
Speaker—
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
153
Hon. J. P. llobarts (Prime Minister): He
was teasing you and you did not realize it.
Mr. MacDonald: If the Prime Minister
thinks that he was teasing us, the Prime Min-
ister has more trouble on his hands than he
realizes, because the hon. gentleman was not
teasing anybody; he was about ready to take
on anybody, including the Speaker. It started
last Thursday or Friday when he was indig-
nant at the thought that some restriction
should be imposed on the abuse by the
Treasury benches in reply to questions.
I do not want to pursue this any more,
Mr. Speaker. You have indicated that you
are going to set up a committee to examine
the rules. I think— and this is where my
expression of sympathy comes— you have on
this side of the House a feeling that the
situation is nearly intolerable; you have on
the other side of the House considerable feel-
ing that if there is any change for an equal
application of the rules of the House, it be-
comes intolerable for them. So all I can say
is that your role will have to be something
of a Solomon and I wish you well.
Unfortunately, our newest Cabinet Minis-
ter is not with us this afternoon and this is
really going to take a little of the fun out
of the game. Between each session there is
the usual game of musical chairs and the
Prime Minister has not failed us again this
time— he has brought a new man into the
Cabinet. He is a man who brings to his new
responsibilities undoubted abilities, plus ex-
perience as chairman of the taxation commit-
tee, which is going to stand not only him but
this Legislature in good stead.
But Mr. Speaker, from experience on this
side of the House, we have learned that the
hon. Minister vacillates unpredictably from
being a serious public servant, dealing objec-
tively and rationally with public issues, to a
self-appointed hatchet man for the Tory
party, resorting to barracking tactics that
would make the members of the Chicago
gang to his right look like a group of pikers.
In short, the new Minister is a veritable
Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde. For his own
sake— and he will read this even if he does
not hear it— I hope that he will forsake this
hatchet role, for too often his tactics in that
capacity have been unworthy of the talent
of the man.
However, before I leave this I want to
recall one incident of recent vintage that I
think is rather pertinent in light of his new
responsibilities. In unveiling the report of
the select committee on taxation, he was
detailing with great enthusiasm the proposal
of the extension of the sales tax to include
food and then compensation, a very elaborate
compensation, by way of a tax rebate— which
he argued was going to be in the form of a
negative income tax that would open the
door to a guaranteed annual income. It was
all very fanciful, but it had magnificent
propaganda overtones and the hon. gentle-
man declared triumphantly: "If I were a
member of the Opposition, I would be scared
to death/'
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to report to
him that there was nobody on our side of the
House, at least in this group, who was
scared to death, but what is even more inter-
esting is that subsequent events have revealed
just who was scared to death. I will tell you
who it was— the members of the Tory party.
The prospect of having to defend the
extension of the sales tax to food, along with
this very elaborate, and likely unworkable
under this government, rebate system, was
such that it produced little short of political
panic among the Tory back benchers. So
much so that the Prime Minister on the eve
of this session rescued all his—
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): He did not want to ruin all
your speeches for some weeks.
Mr. MacDonald: That is an interesting
interjection— "he did not want to ruin all our
speeches". I do not know what his objection
was in taking this issue out of debate because
he certainly got all the Tories off the hook
and they came in here with a degree of
relaxation, with the exception, of cour.se, of
the Provincial Treasurer, who was "white-
lipped and quivering".
My final word to the absent Minister is
diat I hope that his partisan enthusiasms are
not going to carry him away in the fashion
that they sometimes do. I hope that in his
new position he can exercise some of that
discipline of which I know he is capable.
Has the Prime Minister got something to
add?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I do not
want to interrupt. It is just that it appears
to me he has reached you in the last couple
of years.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, he has reached a lot
of people. As a matter of fact, his career is
rather an interesting one. I can remember
the time when he thought he was going to
exercise the role of self appointed hatchet
man by tackling the former leader of the
Opposition following a famous speech on
154
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
crime. Having tackled him, he then pro-
voked the spectacle of the leader going out
and reading the whole speech in the hall so
that all the Tory back benchers were embar-
rassed by the spectacle of what had been
produced.
Mr. Nixon: There has not been a fall
session since.
Hon. Mr. Randall: We are still here,
where is the leader?
Mr. MacDonald: Fine. Now let me pro-
ceed to the seconder of the motion, who again
is not here. This element of truancy in the
House which has become the preoccupation
of the government side when some people
from the New Democratic Party are not
here, is rather interesting— but the absence
of government members of the House is
something that, presumably, can be over-
looked.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr.
Jessiman) spent a great deal of time trying
to make political hay out of the recent New
Democratic Party leadership convention and,
indeed, the leader of the Opposition appar-
ently, at some stages in his speech, had so
little else to offer that he too, got in on the
game.
Mr. Nixon: Irresistible.
Mr. MacDonald: It obviously was irresist-
ible. The vacuum had to be filled with some-
thing. Both of these gentlemen, Mr. Speaker,
are obviously exasperated, even infuriated, by
the indisputable fact that the New Demo-
cratic Party is united and stronger than it
ever was before.
Mr. Nixon: That is for local consumption.
Mr. R. M. Johnston (St. Catharines): Just
a dreamer.
Mr. MacDonald: All this huffing and puff-
ing is not going to alter that fact. What we
had, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): You are
getting to him.
Mr. MacDonald: What we had, Mr.
Speaker, to quote the Prime Minister— at this
point obviously I am getting to them— what
we had, Mr. Speaker, in the last session of
the Legislature, was a New Democratic
Party that was strong enough in the 1967
election to win 290,000 more votes. While
the Tory party was going down 30,000 and
dropping seven per cent of the total. While
the Liberal Party was staying the same, but
dropping four per cent of the total, we were
picking up that 10 or 11 per cent increase.
That was the New Democratic Party, Mr.
Speaker, of the last session. I know, Mr.
Speaker, that people on that side of the
House-
Mr. Nixon: What did you say about filling
a vacuum?
Mr. MacDonald: I will tell you, Mr.
Speaker, as well as the hon. member for
Oxford. I told it to a whole convention in-
cluding the hon. member for Riverdale and
we saw the result— they believed it. So just
listen because you should believe it too, if
you want to live with the facts.
You see, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen
on the other side of the House would like to
argue that what happened with the New
Democratic Party in the last election was
not much of an achievement; that indeed, it
was something of a failure. Well, Mr.
Speaker, just let me say to anybody who
wants advanced that argument-
Mr. Nixon: And who will listen.
Mr. MacDonald: —that a projection of
what happened in the last election, the gains
and the losses, no more and no less, shows
that in the next election the New Demo-
cratic Party will emerge as the largest single
party in the province-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: The Tories dropped in
popular vote from 49 per cent to 42 per
cent; a similar drop once again will bring
them down to 35 per cent. This is an inter-
esting little numbers game and rather a
significant one. The Liberals came down
from 35 to 31; a similar drop will bring
them down to 27 per cent. The New Demo-
cratic Party came up from 16 to 27 and will
do it again, to put it at 38 per cent— the
largest single party in terms of popular vote.
At that level the seats will fall.
However, Mr. Speaker, what I have been
talking about is the New Democratic Party
you saw in the last session. What you are
going to see, Mr. Speaker, in this session, in
case it has missed your attention, is a New
Democratic Party which has certainly ex-
amined its weaknesses and strengths.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, I know that the
Tories do not think that they have any weak-
nesses.
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
155
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The hon. member is
right.
Mr. MacDonald: Everybody knows the
Liberals have weaknesses, but you do not
think you have. We have examined our
weaknesses and our strengths and our mem-
bers know exactly what must be done to win
the next election. What is more important is
that they have gone home to start doing the
job right now. This party, Mr. Speaker, has
a basic strength and unity such that it can
cope with the tensions of a leadership cam-
paign.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Who wrote that,
Donald?
Mr. MacDonald: I always write my own
speeches. I wish I could say the same for
you.
Hon. Mr. Randall: I will get you to write
mine the next time.
Mr. MacDonald: Right. We will certainly
improve it.
Our differences were one of emphasis. They
have been reviewed by our authoritative
body, namely the convention. We have now
returned to that great area that we hold in
common. The leader is back, Mr. Speaker,
with a strong renewal of mandate; the deputy
leader is back with the unanimous support of
the caucus, and I give you fair warning that
this government's trusteeship is going to be
subjected to the most detailed and revealing
analysis that has ever taken place in this
Legislature.
An hon. member: Old home week.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, welcome back. The
bridge game is over, is it?
Mr. R. M. Johnston: Carry on—
Mr. MacDonald: I would just say, Mr.
Speaker, through you to the hon. members
on the other side, that if this inflicts upon
them too much pain and suffering, they have
my permission to leave.
An hon. member: Quit the foolishness,
carry on.
Another hon. member: That is the truth.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to
suggest seriously to the other side of the
House that perhaps it is time they began to
look at their own problems and not dwell on
the problems that they think exist with the
New Democratic Party, because this govern-
ment is crumbling of its own dead weight
and old age. Every year it gets more and
more out of touch with the people and more
insensitive to their needs.
Do not accept my word for it, because I
know you will consider my words to be
tinged with partisanship, but I have been
interested, in the last two or three months, in
reading the papers to hear of leading people
in the Conservative Party publicly moaning
and groaning about the plight of the party
and what they have got to do if they are
going to avoid catastrophe in the next
election.
I remember picking up the Globe and Mail
over my cup of coffee one morning and read-
ing some unnamed top official of the party—
and I can quite understand why he should
be unnamed when he made this sort of a
comment— saying that in the next election,
with John Robarts as leader of the party, the
best they could expect was to come back with
a minority government. I reflected on that,
and my only reaction was, it was a little
optimistic.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: Can I do better?
Mr. J. Jessiman (Fort William): Sure he
can.
Mr. MacDonald: I will turn to an ack-
nowledged voice of Toryism. The Hamilton
Spectator, which has been a regular and
faithful exponent of Toryism and supporter
of this party down through the years. A few
weeks ago— as a matter of fact, on October
18— W. F. Gold, an editorial writer for that
paper, had an article under his byline. He
came out and identified his authorship with
his byline.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Is the member sure he
is not NDP?
Mr. MacDonald: I have often been im-
pressed with his intelligence, and was more
impressed when I read this. Therefore, what
you say, I think, is not an impossibility.
However, that is a decision he will have to
make. However, let me quote Mr. Gold:
Ontario's powerful Conservative machine
is showing signs of running down. If the
decline is not halted in the next 18 months
it could reach fatal proportions by election
time 1971.
People have been making such dire pre-
dictions, of course, ever since a rambunc-
tious Col. George Drew re-established Tory
156
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
rule at Queen's Park by a whisker in 1943.
But the government is getting older now
and more vulnerable.
Ironically, as is the case with most aging
administrations, die fault lies not so much
in its conduct of the art of government as
such, but in the gradually hardening atti-
tudes, its general frame of mind, and its
slowing, calcifying responses to the people.
These latter characteristics were amply
and repellingly demonstrated in this region
just a few months ago as the government
employed every political tactic in the book
—short of telling the truth and really com-
ing to grips with the issue— to circumvent,
squash, mislead and generally head off an
aroused public opinion over the question of
the route of the Dundas bypass highway
through the beautiful valley wilderness.
This is the calcified approach that manifested
itself once again, Mr. Speaker.
Voters from other areas all over the
province have similar stories to tell. They
have run into arrogance and rigidity
whether the point at issue was roads, grants
or whatever.
A feeling of general uneasiness is creep-
ing into the party structure as well. Re-
peated rumours are going the rounds that
John Robarts plans to step down within a
year. Certainly any man deserves to, after
seven years in so rough a job. Yet from
the pragmatic political standpoint, his de-
parture may be necessary.
Ontarians may have applauded his states-
manship which led to the Confederation for
Tomorrow conference but they are getting
a little weary of lectures on public finance
which he has begun to deliver in recent
months. These speeches have in effect
scolded the public for profligacy in its de-
mands, thus missing the point that it was
the Conservative government of the day
which implemented these spending plans,
often without any demand at all. Witness
the homeowners' tax exemption which is
costing $150 million this year. . . .
And finally, 25 years is a long time.
Normal political prudence would have dic-
tated a very modest and almost silent cele-
bration of that anniversary a few months
ago. Instead, the assembled faithful pulled
out the stops and made an enormous
amount of noise, thus succeeding in re-
minding everyone just exactly how old this
somewhat tired government actually is.
Its handling of patronage is becoming
steadily more clumsy and capricious, and
anachronisms like the dictatorial powers of
the liquor board producing increasing re-
sentment, and the signs of a change are too
little, too late.
More important is the lack of a coherent
policy towards the large cities. Here the
problem is basic comprehension, plain and
simple.
And if I may interject, it simply does not
exist in the government ranks.
The men in the power structure simply
do not understand the functioning and
problems of urban areas and this will cost
them dearly.
I put it on the record, Mr. Speaker; not my
views of a paper which normally is quite
friendly to this government.
However, just one more bit so that the
record will be complete. If I may go back
to that Tory pocket borough of yesteryear,
namely Victoria-Haliburton, I was most inter-
ested to read a clipping that came over my
desk from Lindsay. It is dated October 31,
not very long ago, and says:
Disenchantment with the Tory party in
Ontario was clearly evident in remarks
made by several speakers at the annual
meeting Wednesday of the Victoria-Hali-
burton riding P.C. Association.
Ironically, most of the condemnation was
voiced by three ex-wardens of Victoria
county. These long-time staunch Tories
took the government to task for dictatorial
policies as well as high education and wel-
fare costs.
"In the past we had government serving
the people, now governments have us serv-
ing them," declared John Alton of Lorne-
ville. "Men of the stature of John Diefen-
baker and Leslie Frost made one feel proud
to be a Tory. It was during their time as
leaders that this country enjoyed its great-
est progress," he maintained. Issuing a
warning that "the people are ready for
revolt"—
Imagine! Victoria-Haliburton and the people
are ready for revolt!
—Reeve Wilbert Worsley of Fenelon town-
ship declared, "The government is getting
away from the people."
And just to prove the point and cap the
whole thing, the sitting member from the
area is quoted thus:
The long and arduous sessions of the
Ontario Legislature were cited in a speech
here Wednesday as one of the reasons why
government is getting away from the
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
157
people. "We ju9t don't have time to get
together with the people any more," de-
clared MPP Glen Hodgson, when address-
ing the annual meeting of the Victoria-
Haliburton riding P.C. Association. "Gov-
ernment is getting to be business rather
than serving die people."
We are here for five months of the year, only
five months of the year, and I tell this gov-
ernment wc will be here longer before we
are here shorter, make no mistake about it.
Yet it is impossible for the Tories to have
contact with the people. Let me tell you—
we have no trouble in getting contact with
the people, whether it is in Picton or you
name it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The hon.
member can look inscrutable but he is not
fooling us.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the Cab-
inet members have all had their opportunity
to have their say perhaps I can get back
into the picture here.
I would like to take briefly some examples,
by way of documentation, of the insensitivity
of this government, its failure to meet the
needs of the people. I am not going to go
into detail on them; my colleagues will have
opportunity later in the Throne Debate and
in the estimates to get into the detail. But
let me start with that area with which this
government is so preoccupied because it has
traditionally been its area of strength— rural
Ontario, the farmers. I was very interested
that after the most careful examination of
the new expropriation bill, which has just
been brought before us, I found nothing in
the expropriation bill to deal with the par-
ticular problems that have been faced by
agriculture in expropriation.
Farmers are not just homeowners, and
farmers are not just business men. And I
suggest if you go back and look at the kind
of thing that farmers have faced in terms of
expropriation from The Department of High-
ways, particularly in such events, for example,
as the Pittock dam in the Woodstock area,
there are peculiar problems with regard to
expropriation. After such careful examina-
tion of this issue, the government brings in
a bill which reflects nothing of these par-
ticular problems at all. We will have an
opportunity a little later, Mr. Speaker, to
look into this.
If I may move on to a second point— this
fall we have witnessed the spectacle of the
United States authorities challenging exorbi-
tant price increases in automobiles, and as a
result of the pressure, we finally have a
rollback in car prices. We in the New Demo-
cratic Party have been trying to get the
government in Ottawa to stop the kind of
huffing and puffing that Mr. Sharp was en-
gaged in for a time, but he would not follow
through with any action; or to get this gov-
ernment, through a prices review board, to
look into the exorbitant price increases in
the automobile industry, because most of it
is right in this province.
During the course of the past few months
there has come out of Washington some fas-
cinating evidence. For years nobody has ever
been able to get from the automobile indus-
try the cost of making cars, but that incor-
rigible digger, Ralph Nader, has gotten the
information and it is being submitted to a
congressional committee under Senator Gay-
lord Nelson's chairmanship in Washington,
and now they are examining it. They have
discovered that while the price increases are
relatively acceptable as between the manu-
facturer and his sales to the dealer, what
happens on parts and other things is really
scandalous.
A four-door Galaxie 500, for example, costs
the dealer 16.8 per cent more than it costs
the builder to make, but optional equipment,
usually amounting to a third of the selling
price, was marked up anywhere between
57.8 per cent and 293 per cent over cost,
according to Nelson's figures.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
To the dealer? The markup is to the dealer?
Mr. MacDonald: The dealer, who is the
retailer. The markup to the dealer, right. I
am sorry, I missed the significance of the
Minister's interjection. The markup to the
dealer for the car is 16 per cent, but on
these parts, it is up to as high as 293 per
cent, and this, of course, is where the great
profits are made.
What is this government going to do?
What is the federal government going to do
about this kind of a situation in Canada? Do
we have to count on a certain situation in
Washington being such as to force the presi-
dent of the United States to move, so that
we in Canada can get relief from this ex-
orbitant gouging of the consumers? If the
government at Ottawa signed a Canada-U.S.
auto pact and is not willing to make certain
158
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that the consumers benefit as they are en-
titled to benefit under that pact— after the
management has benefitted from a $50 mil-
lion handout, in effect, out of the public
treasury— is this government willing to move
in this kind of proposition?
Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): It is the
federal government.
Mr. MacDonald: It is not just the federal
government. The federal government has
some responsibility but this government can
establish a prices review board and get at
the facts and provide the facts to the public.
This is what this government is unwilling to
do.
Let me read one other comment here in
this news story.
Despite requests by the Justice Depart-
ment, the federal safety officials, the Auto-
mobile Union and other organizations,
General Motors, Ford and Chrysler have
refused to voluntarily reveal the cost of
building an auto.
In other words we have to operate in the
dark. We can do as we please with the
inevitable, irresistible, increase each year in
Canada, unjustified under the Canada-U.S.
Auto Pact. I take the word of a former pro-
vincial Finance Minister of this country, Mr.
Sharp, when he was in that position. Here
is one area where the government has simply
walked away from its responsibilities.
I move on to another area. All throughout
the fall this government has sought to per-
suade the federal government to go back
on its Medicare commitment— even though it
has taken us 50 years to get the Liberals to
accept the Medicare commitment in this
country. Always we are told it is going to
cost too much. When is this government
going to face the facts? The fact that this
government is now subsidizing all of the high
risks in the province of Ontario. Figures that
became available from a survey last spring
indicate that the total Ontario cost for Medi-
care today, what is being paid by the gov-
ernment and what is being paid by individuals,
is $465 million. The total cost if we went
into the federal Medicare Plan would be $450
million. In other words, it would be less.
I was interested just two or three weeks
ago— October 23 to be exact^to find that
somebody asked a question in the federal
House with regard to the average per capita
cost of physicians' services in this country.
We have listened for the last two or three
years to spokesmen of this government,
saying that the total cost, most of which is
made up in physicians' services, is in the
range, in the province of Ontario, of some
$48. We get into constant wrangling as to
what are the accurate figures.
Well, here is the latest little figure for you
to take a look at. The average per capita
cost of physicians' services in Canada in 1966,
the latest year for which data was available,
was $33.45, or $2.99 a month. On the basis
of preliminary observations, it is estimated
that the corresponding figure for January,
1968, was $3.26 per month, or $39.12 for
the year.
Now, if you examine the breakdown for
the provinces, for Ontario it is $35.55. If
you project an increase to the beginning of
1968, it will take you into the range of $40
to $42. How does one square this with the
$48 or the $50 figures which are going up
each time this government uses them? I have
given the most recent official figures.
I suggest that this government is indulging
in high figures for the purpose of scaring the
public out of Medicare. It is an utterly shame-
ful proposition that a Tory government should
pretend to be in favour of Medicare and
should be assisting the Liberals to get out of
a commitment that it took them 50 years to
have the guts to implement in statutes. And
then to cap the climax, a week or so ago,
we have still another increase in Medicare
costs in the province of Ontario, with a uni-
lateral, unnegotiated, increase in doctors'
fees. I asked the Minister of Health yesterday
whether he knew about it. He replied that he
got a letter saying that it was going to be
done. We have listened in this country to
the federal and the provincial governments
moan and groan about exorbitant increases
that are inflationary and are wrecking our
whole economy. There are great lectures
delivered to the workers and to others, but
the doctors do as they please and the Min-
ister gets a letter telling him that it is done
and nothing more happens. When I asked
the Minister whether he feels it is a tolerable
proposition to have to be handed unilaterally
announced increases in fees from the profes-
sion which is the highest paid profession in
the province of Ontario, he says "we hope to
work out some sort of an agreement with
them". It is about time that this government
had the courage to act on behalf of the
people of the province of Ontario. It is
simply because they have not got the cour-
age to act on behalf of the people of the
province of Ontario, and bow and scrape in
front of every vested interest who dictates
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
159
from behind the scenes, that you are crumb-
ling in the eyes of the people of this province.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Where is the Health Minister?
Mr. MacDonald: Where is the Health Min-
ister?—that is another good point. Let us
take a look at the housing Minister because
if there is any Minister who is bringing ques-
tions and disrepute upon this government
more than the hon. Minister of Trade and
Development, I cannot figure whom it might
be. The Minister is barnstorming, not only
across the whole of the province of Ontario,
but across the world. He is in Tokyo today,
he is in Bonn tomorrow; when it is the job
of somebody— and if not this Minister then
let him get out of it and get somebody else
to do it— to tackle the housing problem in
the province.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Is there anyone who has
any doubt that this is to him?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: I will tell you— in the
last election we got within 800 votes in Dan
Mills, so just go home and tend to your
knitting because it cannot be attended to
in Bonn or Tokyo. Mr. Speaker, I am not
interested in the Minister's production of
figures which are usually on the basis of a
project in which has has given us two or
three earlier sets of figures. The earlier sets
of figures meant nothing and it is likely that
the latest one will not mean anything. We
have simply got to build houses in greater
numbers in this province of Ontario. Until
we do something about a vacancy rate, which
in the metropolitan areas is cne, or less than
one per cent, and until you have got over
that problem, there is no point in this
Minisur, who can sell refrigerators to
Eskimos, or any other preposterous proposi-
tion cf that nature, trying to kid the public
that the housing situation has been solved—
it has not.
Hon. Mr. Randall: How many were built in
Saskatchewan in 21 years?
Mr. MacDonald: I am not interested in how
many were built in Saskatchewan. I am inter-
ested in how many you have not built in the
province of Ontario, that is the important
tiling.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Mr. MacDonald: Does the Minister want
the floor for a moment?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, go ahead.
Mr. MacDonald: Let us take a look at
another point in this Minister's department.
We have only got to examine with great care
the kind of abuse of the public treasury
which this Minister is engaging in, in his
so-called "forgiveness grants"— "forgiveness
loans"— We desperately need a balance in
economic development in the province of On-
tario. There was a day when this government
operated on the proposition that if some com-
pany that happens to be a marginal company,
but in the assessment of the appropriate offi-
cers of this government, may well have had a
contribution to make— if they cannot get their
money from the traditional sources for capital,
then let them come to the government and
the government will assist them.
That was a questionable proposition, be-
cause it meant that the government under-
wrote the worst risks, but at least the
gjvernment was trying to build in those areas
where we do not have economic development.
Today we have a fatuous proposition. The
richer the company is and the more resources
it has, the more certain, this Minister told us
just two days ago, it is that they can get a
loan, a "forgiveness loan."
Let us face a fundamental fact here, Mr.
Speaker. If a company is going to build in
any area it is going to build because there is
a prospect for long-term profits. Otherwise,
it is not going to go into it. And therefore,
what it amounts to, in the instance of some
of these well-established companies that have
large reserves, is a straight hand-out of the
public treasury that is not needed at all. If
a company has got reserves of tens, or hund-
reds of millions of dollars, this Minister is
just handing out up to $500,000 which goes
into private pockets; they do not need it any
more than E. P. Taylor needs the $20,000 a
year to train his horses.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Well they have got most
of the new factories.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Talk to the Crane em-
ployees in Port Hope, or talk to the company
whose position I drew to the Minister's atten-
tion earlier today where they got, I think, a
grant in July for something over $200,000—
I seek confirmation of the exact amount. They
160
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have laid off 60 people since they got the
grant; they are in the process of further out-
lays. What kind of a proposition is this? This
is abuse of the public Treasury.
This government is so penny pinching, it is
examining with the greatest of care, grants to
students. It examines with the greatest of
care the overpayment of $75 or so in a wel-
fare cheque, and it hounds that little man
until he has paid it back. It has examined
savings so carefully that out in the Whitby
hospital, patients who are working in the hos-
pital and were paid five to ten cents an hour,
have now had their pay reduced to two cents
an hour. It examines all these things so care-
fully. Yet with reckless abandon it will hand
$500,000 to a company to establish in some
part of the province, when that company has
reserves th^t are such that they have no need
of the $500,000 at all.
In short, Mr. Speaker, here is not only an
indication of where the government is not
fulfilling the objectives of a programme, it is
abusing the public Treasury for its friends
in the business world— American friends at
that.
Well we will take a further look at that at
some later time.
Interjections by lion, members.
Mr. MacDonald: I will proceed to another
point Mr. Speaker. For years, this govern-
ment has refused to deal with sources of fric-
tion in labour-management relations. Ten
years ago, I happened to be a member of a
select committee of this Legislature which
made reports with regard to the streamlining
and modernizing of The Labour Relations
Act. I have said it many times before, but
apparently it has to be said again— one of the
unanimous recommendations was, for example,
the getting rid of ex parte injunctions — a
unanimity that was shared by eight Tory
members, six of whom were in the Cabinet
then, have been since, or are in the Cabinet
now.
What have they done about it? Nothing.
Because people behind the scenes in the
business and management world wanted to
keep ex parte injunctions. A gross violation
of British justice, and this government was
willing to do it. Then last year, or two years
ago when we had the Oshawa and the Tilco
situation, and the injunction issue flared up
and caused a great public furor, what did
this government do? Did it dust off that
ten -year- old unanimous recommendation
about ex parte injunctions? No.
It set up another Royal commission, and
now we have backed into a set of proposals
from an old gentleman whose mind is a legal
mind, and who has produced a legal strait-
jacket which is going to compound our diffi-
culties and produce industrial strife instead
of industrial peace in the province of Ontario
if this government ever proceeds to imple-
menting it.
Twenty-five years ago, even the Tories
recognized that labour-management relation-
ships were basically a problem of human
relationships— not legal questions. Therefore,
they took the whole question of labour-
management relationships out of the regular
courts and put them in a special court widi
labour and management and impartial chair-
men sitting on that court.
Now we will have a proposal which is the
result of this government refusing to deal
with the issue in light of recommendations
from ten years ago. We now have a proposal
from Mr. Justice Rand for a legal strait-
jacket, which is going to get us into incom-
parable difficulties.
We saw some of these difficulties when
we went down to Picton the other day. There
we have a case of a management refusing to
bargain in good faith throughout a whole
year. This union was certified December 27
last year. They even refused to grant the
minimum wages which this government has
finally implemented at disgracefully low
levels. Even those low levels this company
refuses to implement in a contract.
Once again, because of the laws of this
province, they have been able to invoke the
whole weight of the court on their side
through an injunction, and they are now in
the process of breaking the union through the
gradual replacement of its working force, and
this government sits on the sidelines and does
nothing about it.
The government prattles about the impor-
tance of unions while perpetuating laws
which make it possible for recalcitrant man-
agement to break legitimate collective bar-
gaining units in areas where they are
imposing sub-marginal wages.
Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of thing that
the people in this province are not going to
tolerate any longer. They are going to fight
on the issue, and quite frankly when they
fight, we in the New Democratic Party are
going to be with them.
I could go into the farm, into the welfare
field, into the health field, into any field at
all, and find the same kind of growing in-
sensitivity to the needs of the people on the
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
161
part of a government which is frustrated
because of its commitments to vested interests,
and cannot move to meet the needs of the
people.
That is the reason why the image of this
government has deteriorated more and more
in the last two or three months, and their
friends are pointing it out clearly. We do
not have to point it out.
Mr. Speaker, if you wanted any further
proof of the bankruptcy of this government,
you have it in the Throne Speech— of all the
vacuous documents! The Prime Minister said
that they finalized the writing of the Throne
Speech so late they did not have the time
to get it translated into French in time for
the opening day. For the life of me, I cannot
figure out what this government was doing
that they had to delay. Because there was
nothing in the speech.
It was contemptuously empty of sub-
stance. So the result is that we in this Legis-
lature, for the next two or three weeks have
got to operate within a vacuum in a Throne
Debate, guessing at what this government is
going to do.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and I pass
this on to the government rather seriously
since it presumes it is the body most intent
in protecting some of our old and historically
honoured procedures, that a few more vacu-
ous speeches like that, and a lot more people
are going to be persuaded that it is time we
got rid of some of the meaningless folderol
of the opening day of the Legislature.
It has been put on the record in this House,
what people like Bill Rathbun— he has now
been taken to the bosom of the government,
so they must think he is a pretty good fellow
—had to say about the empty procedures of
this Legislature on its opening day, and to
cap the climax, we have this kind of a
Throne Speech.
Mr. M. Gaunt ( Huron-Bruce ) : No wild
river this year.
Mr. MacDonald: No, not even the relief
of wild rivers. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a
few tilings that I want to say that might have
been dealt with in the Throne Speech and I
can assure you, whether they are in the
Throne Speech or not, they are going to be
dealt with in the course of this session. So
I will proceed to them. We just hope that,
with the expropriation bill, and some other
things that are perhaps going to meet the
needs of the people, the government will
inject some substance into their vacuous pro-
gramme so that we can spend our time a
little bit more usefully between now and
Christmas.
The first topic that I want to touch upon,
Mr. Speaker, has to do with the Indian situ-
ation or the problems with relation to
Indians in the province of Ontario.
During the Throne Debate a year ago, I
detailed at some length, the shameful con-
ditions under which Canada's Indian popula-
tion live and work. I placed on record
proposals for a fundamentally new approach
to Indian affairs which had just been ad-
vanced by the Indian-Eskimo association
with the apparent support and approval of
the Ontario Union of Indians.
These proposals involved an almost com-
plete decentralization of the present responsi-
bilities of the Indian Affairs branch in Ottawa
to the provinces— indeed, all of the responsi-
bilities, except those pertaining to treaties
and lands.
It was argued that if the social and eco-
nomic welfare of our Indian population were
to be more fully met, it could be done if
programmes were worked out by the pro-
vincial government, particularly since most
of the resources— land, timber minerals, game,
water, fish and hydro power— the keys to the
welfare of Indians, lie within provincial
jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, during the past year, tra-
gically little has been done to achieve this
objective. At the moment, I do not want to
go into the details of the programme. There
will be other opportunities during this ses-
sion and many of my colleagues will use
them.
My interest, at this time, is to consider the
broad outlines of overall policy and the diffi-
culties which lie in the way of achieving those
changes concerning which there is a grow-
ing consensus of support.
Let me make this point first. Canada's
treatment of its native Indian population has
been such a shameful record that we have
escaped the consequences of our action for
longer than we deserve. The Indians have
had the patience of the gods in face of grave
injustices. As a people, they have been
docile. But all that is rapidly coming to an
end. Observers cannot have missed some
rather significant changes in recent months.
The normal orderly pattern of meetings
has been disrupted by a vigorous protest of
Indian leaders. They have demanded, and
sometimes with too little grace, have been
accorded a place on agendas designed to
consider their plight.
162
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Cabinet Ministers, both federal and pro-
vincial, have been sharply confronted both in
meetings and hotel lobbies. At long last,
Indian leaders are no longer docile. There
is a ferment and unrest which carries the
clear warning that either governments grapple
more effectively with Indian problems, par-
ticularly by granting Indians greater oppor-
tunities to shape their own destiny, or Can-
ada is going to experience the same kind of
violent protest which has emerged in many
other countries with minority groups.
Speaking in Burlington early in October,
Omer Peters, who is both president of the
Ontario Union of Indians and president of
the Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada
bluntly warned that organized militant Can-
adian Indians are teaching riot instigation
techniques all across the country. Red power
groups are emerging. There is grave danger
that solutions will soon be made all the more
difficult because of their activity. Time is
running out. Already we face the prospect of
having to pay a heavy price for years, dec-
ades, even centuries of neglect and procras-
tination, and at our peril can we delay any
longer?
As one news report put it: "Get off my
back, white man," was the message coming
through the politics and intrigue of the con-
ference of the Indian-Eskimo Association held
in Toronto here this fall.
At the federal level, Mr. Speaker, there
has been an unprecedented re-examination of
government policy. Chretien, Andras and
Co. have conducted seminars with native
people all across the country. This whole
process has been shadowed by a growing
feeling among Indians and Eskimos that once
again Ottawa is going paternalistically to
decide what should be done with our native
peoples, committing once again the fatal
error. Whatever is done must be done for
the most part, by decision of the Indians
themselves.
But it is too early to prejudge what will
come of this fundamental review. Native
peoples are hopeful and their hopes still out-
weigh their apprehensions. Their mood is
perhaps summed up in the comment of one
Indian leader, "If this is another snow job,
it will be the last one."
Let me, however, turn to the Ontario gov-
ernment situation because it is our immediate
concern. Here the apprehensions are not
relieved by any significant measure of hope.
Perhaps I can best set the context of my
criticisms of this government's failure and
intolerable procrastination by quoting for
hon. members, the remarks of the president
of the Ontario Indian-Eskimo Association at
its recent annual meeting. The gentleman in
question is the Reverend John A. MacKenzie,
an active Progressive Conservative, who un-
successfully sought the federal nomination of
his party in a central Toronto riding last
spring.
This is what Mr. MacKenzie had to say:
While there are signs that the federal
government is beginning to re-evaluate its
policies with the involvement of Indians
and recognize that policies must be imple-
mented on the terms of the Indians and
not the white man, we are increasingly dis-
turbed by the failure of the government of
Ontario to fulfill its role.
The Indian Development Branch of The
Department of Social and Family Services
has been in operation for over two years.
The stated position of the Ontario govern-
ment is to recognize Indians as one of
many ethnic groups, but to treat them
the same as all other groups. Furthermore,
Prime Minister Robarts recently stated that
his government intends to integrate Indians
into Ontario society.
The position of Ontario fails to recog-
nize that almost all other ethnic groups in
Canada come from a western culture while
Indians have a qualitatively different, and
perhaps unique, cultural heritage. The
first step for progress in Ontario is the
unequivocal recognition of these differ-
ences which include the recognition of a
special status for Indians because of their
treaty rights.
The Indian-Eskimo Association has re-
peatedly made known to the government
our position (and that of the Union of On-
tario Indians) that community development
should be removed from direct government
control, and that a Crown corporation be
set up which would be administered in
ways which are consistent with the value
systems of Indians in Ontario.
The government has informed us that
they were listening but that they want to
implement and test the programme which
they have had under way for two years.
We feel that we must now raise some
questions about the existing programmes in
Ontario.
Despite repeated criticisms by Indian
people, some community development offi-
cers continue to operate out of the offices
which administer welfare programmes.
This means that the local community de-
velopment officer is identified in the minds
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
163
of the people as having a particular task
which is related to welfare. This places
him in a position whereby he cannot relate
freely to all aspects of community life.
An Indian advisory board has been
established by the Ontario Department of
Social and Family Services. The terms of
reference of the board are somewhat con-
fusing to many Indian people in that the
distinction between an advisory board and
a decision making body has not been
clearly interpreted to the native peoples.
There has been concern expressed that
recommendations of the advisory board
have not been adequately acted upon by
the department. There is further con-
fusion on the use of the advisory boards.
Policies affecting them should be discov-
ered and developed in ways which include
the community in the decision-making.
The government of Ontario has made it
clear to the people in the Kensington area
in downtown Toronto that no urban re-
newal would take place without their
direct participation in the decision-making
process. This same principle must be rec-
ognized in working with Indian communi-
ties in Ontario. The people who live in
the community must play the dominant
role in making the decisions which affect
their lives.
That is the end of my quote from Mr. Mac-
Kenzie for the moment, Mr. Speaker. But
from these criticisms of general attitudes of
the government, Mr. MacKenzie then pro-
ceeded to specifics. He pointed out that the
establishment of the Indian Development
Branch and the subsequent appointment of
community development officers has provided
the Indians with new means of expressing
their needs and developing initiatives to
meet them. But consistently the government
has said "NO", with a capital N-O to re-
quests for financial assistance to fulfill the
initiatives once the Indians have taken them.
Consider the record. The Indians sought
grants to support folk-school projects which
are obviously vitally important in their effort
to strengthen their cultural heritage and
thereby rebuild their self-esteem as a people.
The government refused.
The Indian Hall of Fame at the CNE is
an obvious symbol of our desire to restore
the Indian to his rightful place in our his-
tory. Grants were sought for this purpose.
The government refused.
A grant was sought for the Canadian Indian
Workshop at Waterloo. The government
refused.
If the current review of The Indian Act by
the federal government is to reflect the views
of the Indians themselves, as it must, it was
important that representations by Ontario
Indians be made as effective as possible. The
Union of Ontario Indians sought a one-time
grant for a field work project to assist in this
critically important endeavour. The govern-
ment refused.
There is a growing concern about the plight
of these Indians who have left the reserves
and flocked to the cities. An action research
project designed to assist migrant Indian
people receiving the joint support of the
Metropolitan Toronto Social Planning Coun-
cil, the Indian Affairs Branch, the Toronto
Indian Centre and the Ontario Division of
the Indian-Eskimo Association. In spite of
this collective effort by, and on behalf of the
Indians, the government refused financial
assistance.
Having encouraged Indian initiative, Mr.
Speaker, this government consistently frus-
trates its fulfillment. The resulting situation,
I suggest to you, is almost more dangerous
than if the government had done nothing to
begin with. Mr. MacKenzie concluded in his
annual report to the Ontario IEA:
The time has come for the Ontario gov-
ernment to reconsider its policies with re-
gard to the Indians before it is too late.
The first step, by necessity, must be open-
ing up channels of communication be-
tween Indian communities and government
branches and departments. It must be
recognized that the Indians are adamant
about their involvement in the decision-
making process.
That is the end of Mr. Mackenzie's comment.
Mr. Speaker, that critique by an organiza-
tion which works closely with Indians, is
both fundamental and far-reaching. I can
do no better than present the representations
of the Indian-Eskimo Association at the
length to which I have done, because they
are authoritative. And without hesitation, I
say that they have the solid backing of the
Ontario New Democratic Party.
Before the government sloughs all this off
with that unctuous bravado for which the
chairman of the Cabinet committee on Indian
affairs— the hon. Minister of Social and Family
Affairs (Mr. Yaremko)— is so renowned, let me
remind you that essentially the same criticisms
have been expressed in this Legislature by
government members.
164
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
For example, speaking in the Throne
Debate last session, the hon. member for
Kenora stated:
The consensus in northwestern Ontario
is that too often policies and programmes
are based on ideas originating in the ad-
ministrative centres of Ottawa and Toronto,
and lack the residents' insight into the
problem. The difficulties encountered and
the failure rate of such policies and pro-
grammes attest to the validity of these
views.
Later, the hon. member for Kenora referred
to the agreements by which the responsi-
bilities for Indian affairs now resting with
the federal government might be transferred
to the provincial government. And he pointed
out, and I quote:
Under the existing agreement, very little
authority has been transferred from the
federal to the provincial government. The
transition is difficult, but one may question
whether there is enough effort being made
at the provincial level to speed up the
process.
In seconding the motion in reply to the
Speech from the Throne last week, the hon.
member for Fort William declared that there
are too many organizations and individuals
with "do-gooding" inclinations getting in-
volved in Indian problems, and then he
gratuitously insulted them all by asserting
that they were simply seeking publicity for
themselves.
Let me assert, Mr. Speaker, that the prize
"do-gooder" in the picture at the moment is
the Minister of Social and Family Services
who chairs the ineffectual Cabinet committee
on these matters. In fact, I know of no more
professional "do-gooder" than he. He posi-
tively drips it.
However, the Minister's actions merely
symbolize a government policy which is
basically misconceived, so let us take a look
at the government's policy itself. Tjie Prime
Minister tends to blunt criticism of the prov-
ince's inaction by the facile assertion that
Ontario is willing to assume responsibility
for meeting the Indian needs, that the road-
block to progress is in Ottawa, that we cannot
get agreements with them.
In the Throne Speech last year, the Prime
Minister stated that perhaps it would be
necessary to point out where the difficulties
have arisen, why we have been blocked in
doing what we set out to do and what we
want to do. May I say to the Prime Minister
that there is nothing blocking this govern-
ment except its well-developed capacity to
dream up excuses why it cannot and should
not act.
There is a mythology regarding Indian
affairs which must be destroyed. It has been
widely believed, precisely because govern-
mental authorities have propagated the belief,
that Indian affairs are primarily a federal
matter. Constitutional and legal experts have
dismissed this contention as a mis-reading of
the BNA Act. The BNA Act states that the
federal government shall be responsible for
Indian lands and treaties; it says nothing
about services to the Indians, whether they
be education, welfare or economic develop-
ment. Under the constitution, Ontario has
concurrent responsibilities and, indeed, it has
an obligation to serve Indian peoples as
citizens of this province as much as anybody
else. There are no road blocks, other than
the government's lack of will to get on with
the job.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is the ever-
present problem of money. The Ontario
government argues that it will assume these
responsibilities if Ottawa will provide the
equivalent revenues to do the job. Here,
once again, we have a desperately urgent
problem which is the victim of constitutional
wrangling over the responsibility for action.
Again I assert to the government: You
have concurrent responsibility, so get moving!
After all that this country has done to the
Indians, there is nothing more demeaning
and dangerous than further delay because of
the cost involved.
With regard to the expenditures, may I
remind the hon. members that the Haw-
thome-Tremblay study on Indian affairs
points out, and it is to be found on page
164, that the per capita expenditure on
Canadians in general by government is $740.
The per capita expenditure on Indians is less
than half the national average. It is $300.
So let us not talk as though spending more
money on Indians is going to put them into
a favoured class. They are the recipients of
less than half of the expenditure of govern-
ment compared with the national average.
Let us cut out this shameful procrastination.
Furthermore, let us face a basic fact with
regard to the so-called Cabinet committee on
Indian affairs. It is not a Cabinet committee.
It is a committee on which a half dozen
Cabinet Ministers sit, which has become an
integral part of The Department of Social
and Family Services, with its responsible
officers answerable to the Minister and dep-
uty of that department. It has been locked
into that department so that it cannot fulfill
NOVEMBER 26, 1968
165
the co-ordinating role which is its purpose.
The very fact, so vigorously deplored by the
Indian-Eskimo Association, that community
development officers have to work out of
the welfare offices across the province, is but
one of the unfortunate results that flow from
this.
This government steadfastly refuses to
acknowledge the basic necessities in structur-
ing a Cabinet committee if it is to be effec-
tive. Professor Krueger pointed them out some
years ago in his study of chaotic situations
with regard to regional development in this
province.
To be effective, he pointed out, a Cabinet
committee must be under the direction of a
full-time person who has deputy Minister
status and who is answerable directly to the
Prime Minister. Otherwise, its work staggers
along under the direction of a Minister who
is already overloaded with his departmental
work, and who has not the power to effect
co-ordination, day in and day out, of the
responsibilities which fall under a number of
other Ministers.
The only man who can achieve that kind
of effective co-ordination is a full-time per-
son acting in the name and with the power
of the Prime Minister of the province. I say
this with regard to the Cabinet committee or
any other committee that this government
establishes. You simply cannot have effective
Cabinet committees on the basis that the
government has been operating them in the
past.
To sum up, therefore, there are a number
of guidelines to policy and action in coping
with Indian affairs.
F;irst, set up an effective Cabinet commit-
tee, under the direction of a competent per-
son with deputy Minister status answerable
directly to the Prime Minister.
Second, treat the Indians as citizens of this
province, and not as wards of the paternal-
istic Great White Father in Ottawa. Let the
province exercise the responsibilities which
it has to serve Indians as well as all other
citizens, and let there be no further delays
while the endless negotiations with Ottawa
drag on.
Finally, and most important of all, let us
proceed to the setting up of regional Crown
corporations, with full Indian involvement
in their direction, to work out and implement
programmes of all kinds— educational, retrain-
ing, welfare, economic, development. In my
view, northwestern Ontario is ready for the
establishment of such a regional development
council right now. Indeed there are units
in operation within that part of the province
which the hon. member for Kenora put on
the record last year, and which logically fit
into the direction of an overall regional de-
velopment council. The piecemeal expendi-
tures of all departments should be pooled
through this one body, which will operate in
the name of the whole government, with the
Indians directly involved at the regional and
local level in the decision-making process for
programmes which are designed to help them.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, with a repetition
of my first remarks. Time is running out.
Either we act quickly to remove the national
shame which has characterized our treatment
of the Indians in the past, or the difficulties
in solving Indian problems will become be-
devilled by red power, with all its irration-
ality and violence, born of years of frustra-
tion and neglect. So the challenge to this
government is to move now and not wait for
two more years to find out how their present
programmes are going to work out, when the
judgment of many people who are authori-
tative in the field is that they simply are not
working out.
Perhaps you will permit me, Mr. Speaker,
to move the adjournment of the House. I was
about to move into another section—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: On the debate?
Mr. MacDonald: Of the debate, rather. My
apologies.
Mr. Nixon: The hon. member is three years
ahead.
Mr. MacDonald: It is the will to win. I
cannot contain it.
Mr. MacDonald moves the adjournment of
the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will resume this
debate.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.00 o'clock p.m.
No. 7
ONTARIO
^Legislature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT - DAILY EDITION
Second Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, November 27, 1968
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
|£iigpMB 5
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 27, 1968
Universities commission, bill to establish, Mr. T. Reid, first reading 169
Highway Traffic Act, bill to amend, Mr. Ben, first reading 169
Ontario human rights code, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr. Ben, first reading 169
Election Act, bill to amend, Mr. Young, first reading 170
Ontario Water Resources Commission Act, bill to amend, Mr. Shulman, first reading .... 170
Introducing Mr. Paul Burgi, MP, of the federal Parliament of Switzerland, Mr. Speaker 170
Organized crime in Ontario, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Nixon and Mr. Young 171
OMSIP for Indians in Ontario, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Nixon 172
EIO loan to Matthews Conveyor Co. in Port Hope, questions to Mr. Randall,
Mr. MacDonald 173
Air pollution at Canada Electric Castings Ltd., questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. MacDonald 173
Capital gains tax for land speculation, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Deans 174
Sunnybrook Hospital, question to Mr. Robarts, Mr. Shulman 174
Laboratory examination of diabetics' blood, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Shulman ... 174
Thistletown OHC complex, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Ben 174
OMA fee schedule, question to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Lewis 175
State of children's teeth in Nipigon, questions to Mr. Dymond, Mr. Stokes 175
Junior farmer loans, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Gaunt 176
Meat inspection in northern Ontario, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. Shulman 176
Crop insurance in Rainy River district, questions to Mr. Stewart, Mr. T. P. Reid 176
Truck traffic behaviour on QEW, questions to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Deans 178
Motor vehicle racing on highways, question to Mr. Haskett, Mr. Shulman 178
Tourist reception centre in Windsor, questions to Mr. Auld, Mr. B. Newman 178
Maximum rentals for OHC housing projects, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. B. Newman 179
Government policy re regional government and urban development, questions to
Mr. Randall, Mr. Pitman 179
Rents geared to income, questions to Mr. Randall, Mr. Ben 180
Taxi licences in Metro, question to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 181
Wire tapping devices, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Sargent 181
Mrs. Dorothy Gertrude Davis, questions to Mr. Wishart, Mr. Shulman 182
Intermittent closing of Lake Shore Road, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. Shulman 182
Transportation facilities in Metro, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. T. Reid 183
Highway construction, questions to Mr. Gomme, Mr. R. S. Smith . ..:.... 183
Fallow deer on Peche Island, question to Mr. Brunelle, Mr. Burr 184
Workmen's compensation coverage for MPPs, questions to Mr. Bales, Mr. Martel 184
Cost of publicizing the tax rebate programme, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Innes 184
CNE-Lakeshore auto race track, questions to Mr. McKeough, Mr. Shulman 184
Fecunis Mines, question to Mr. A. F. Lawrence, Mr. Martel 185
News release of family reunion, questions to Mr. Root, Mr. Breithaupt 186
Liquor control board, question to Mr. Welch, Mr. Sopha 186
Gifts to Nigeria-Biafra, statement by Mr. Robarts 186
Resumption of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. MacDonald 187
Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 203
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 203
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
169
Wednesday, November 27, 1968
The House met at 2.30 o'clock p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to
have visitors to the Legislature and today we
welcome as guests students from the follow-
ing schools: in the east gallery, from East-
dale Vocational School, Toronto, and Emery
Junior High School, Weston: and in the west
gallery, from Highland Heights Public School,
Agincourt, and St. Gregory's Separate School,
Islington. Later this afternoon there will l>e
students from St. Michael's Separate School,
Dunnville, in the west gallery.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that on Friday, November 29 only the House
will meet at 10 a.m.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: In explanation of the
motion, this is in connection with the honour-
ing of the 150th anniversary of the birth of
George Brown. I might say also that the
usual business of the House will be sus-
pended—that includes questions, motions, in-
troduction of bills, and so on. As I explained
yesterday, we will deal only with this par-
ticular function, and then move outside to
proceed with the programme; but the normal
business of the House will be suspended on
Friday.
Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.
UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish
the universities commission.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
the bill is to establish an independent uni-
versities commission containing representation
from the government, universities, and the
community, to allocate the grants of public
money and to act in an inter-university ad-
visor}' capacity.
The basic purpose, Mr. Speaker, is to
assure the citizens and the taxpayers in this
province that the large amount of money
now being spent in our universities is being
wisely and efficiently spent. The purpose
of this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, is to fix
the responsibility for the allocation of these
funds in an independent commission, that is
to say, a commission that is not a government
department. I believe that this would be an
efficient way of allocating the funds and of
securing greater university co-operation.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hum-
be r has the floor.
THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT
Mr. G. Ben (Humber) moves first reading
of bill intituled, An Act to amend The High-
way Traffic Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, this bill requires
that all new automobiles have a log book in
which are recorded all the repairs to the
car and after each repair a certificate that
the motor vehicle is roadworthy. It will also
record the mileages at which repairs are made
and automobiles are sold.
THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS
CODE, 1961-1962
Mr. Ben moves first reading of bill in-
tituled, An Act to amend The Ontario Human
Rights Code, 1961-1962.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
bill is to amend the provision, or wipe out
the provision, which enables educational in-
stitutions and other institutions receiving
government funds to practice discrimination
in their hiring, such as for instance, the
University of Toronto.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I
had thought that I had caught your eye and
that that white glove was pointing right in
mv direction.
170
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hum-
tar had been on his feet at the same time as
the previous member of the Opposition.
THE ELECTION ACT
Mr. Young moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The Election Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
this bill is to reduce the age of persons who
may vote at provincial elections, from 21
years to 18 years.
THE ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES
COMMISSION ACT
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park) moves first
reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend
The Ontario Water Resources Commission
Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose
of this bill is to prevent eutrophication of
water courses.
Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day,
I would like to acknowledge and bring to
the attention of the members present, the
presence here of a member of the federal
Parliament of Switzerland, Mr. Paul Burgi,
MP, who is in the Speaker's gallery. He is
accompanied by Consul General for Switzer-
land in Toronto, Mr. George Falquier, by
Dr. Peter Welti of the General Auditing Co.
in Switzerland, and Mr. Paul Stutz, also of
Zurich, Switzerland.
I am sure that your recognition of this
visiting parliamentarian will be appreciated
by him. I hope that he will not only be
interested but learn something from the pro-
ceedings of this House of Parliament.
Before we proceed to the questions which
normally come at this time of the day, I
would like to advise the members that to-
day, we will try a new system of questions.
The hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Nixon) will, as usual, ask his questions first
—such questions that he has; followed by
the leader of the New Democratic Party, the
hon. member for York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald). Then we will have questions from
the members directed to Ministers and de-
livered to the Ministers in the order in which
they stand on the table of precedence in the
Executive Council. We will see whether this
works any better toward allowing the Min-
isters to get off to work. We will see how
it works and if it does not work as well as
the other, we will go back.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order!
May I say that this is a decision taken
only by Mr. Speaker. I have not consulted
the leaders of any of the parties and I do
not intend to. If it works well and it should,
that is fine. It will only work well if. the
hon. members will give it a fair trial.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, on a point of
privilege. Yesterday I was absent from the
House, in my office, and was unable to be
present during the course of the remarks of
the leader of the Opposition, which I have
since read as set out in the speech he has
given out and as reported in the press.
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Opposition
distributed his speech, which I assume he
read in this House, and I shall only refer to
one portion thereof. In reference to the work
of the children's aid societies, he said the
following:
First let me say that the research on
this subject was done with great hardship
because the Minister's office or people
under his direction have warned societies
that they are not to discuss programmes
financed by the government without clear-
ing such discussions with the department.
Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On a
point of order, might the Minister indicate
whether this is a point of order or a point
of privilege that he is rising on?
Mr. Speaker: The hon Minister-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. Minister is
quite within his rights if he proposes to in-
dicate that the excerpt which he is now read-
ing from, I presume, Hansard, or the speech,
is not a correct statement so far as he is
concerned.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The leader of the Op-
position proceeded to state, as a statement of
fact, "This is an unheard of abuse by the
department" and so on in very colourful,
uncomplimentary language.
That speech was reported. I am glad to
see that some of the hon. members-
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. Minister will
proceed with his point of order.
NOVEMBER 27, 1968
171
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This matter was re-
ferred to in the Toronto Telegram of today,
as follows:
Mr. Nixon said research has been diffi-
cult because the Minister (John Yaremko)
or people under him had given orders to
the societies not to talk.
Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the
leader of the Opposition is completely—
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I deny it categorically.
The leader of the Opposition is off base com-
pletely. I was surprised to see that a man-
Mr. Speaker: Order! If the hon. Minister
wishes to point out that in his opinion, and
from the facts available to him, the hon.
leader of the Opposition was in error in his
statements he is entitled to do so, but he is
not entitled to attack the hon. leader of the
Opposition at this point.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, I rest my
case: I categorically deny—
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, or
point of privilege as it has been stated, may I
suggest to the Minister that he undertake
some inquiry as to why the officials of various
children's aid societies and other branches
that come under his jurisdiction have indi-
cated to me and to my researchers that they
must clear any conversations with the Oppo-
sition with the Minister's office.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, I point
out to you—
Mr. H. Peacock (Windsor West): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order, may I represent
to you that you are permitting a debate to
commence in this House which is out of
order?
Mr. Speaker: I agree with the hon. mem-
ber for Windsor West. He is quite correct in
what he has stated, and I would ask the hon.
leader of the Opposition now to place his
question.
An hon. member: The last word may be
out of order, but get the last word.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): There is
no reason why we cannot learn a few things
from hon. members opposite.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Attorney General, if we can get
through the interruptions from the other side:
What steps will be taken to investigate the
statement made by the United States Federal
Bureau of Investigation that Stefano Magad-
dino of Niagara Falls, New York, is "an over-
lord of crime" in southern Ontario?
Does the Attorney General intend to send
a representative to the United States to con-
sult with the FBI so that all facts are avail-
able to officials in Ontario?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, we have a continuous exchange of
information with the FBI and many other
police agencies, we—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-
view has a similar question or questions.
Would the hon. Attorney General allow the
other question to be placed? Perhaps he can
deal with the whole matter at once.
Mr. Young: My question is whether in view
of the comments of officials of the FBI as re-
ported in today's Toronto Star that Mafia
activities are expanding into Ontario, does the
Attorney General wish to revise his comments
given in reply to my question yesterday?
In the light of the FBI statements, what
actions does the Minister contemplate?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, the police
commission, through the Ontario Provincial
Police and police agencies generally in On-
tario have complete exchange of information
with the FBI and many other police agencies.
They are aware and have been aware of the
activities of the Magaddino people in Ontario.
There have been convictions and prosecutions
of these people, and we are kept fully aware.
The FBI knows and our people know of the
efforts of the criminal elements in the United
States to come into southern Ontario and
other parts of Ontario. This is why this in-
formation flows freely between the police
forces.
There is no answer to the second part of
the question, and I am not taking any
further steps to investigate, because we have
a very capable and very efficient intelligence
agency, and there is a complete exchange of
information. I will not say that we know
everything that criminals do at the moment
they do it, but there is the most complete
exchange of information.
As to the question from the hon. member
for Yorkview, I have no reason to change the
nature of the content of the answer I gave
yesterday, in answer to this question. This
was a question as to whether the reference
in some speculative article— in the New York
172
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Times apparently— that there have been ex-
changes between criminal elements in the
United States which, apparently, in the view
of someone in the federal government of the
United States, related to the eastern part of
Canada.
I said we have no reason to believe that
has reference to Ontario. We still have rea-
son to think that that was a reference to
Montreal, and it was not related to the
Magaddinos. It was the Bonanos up there.
My answer stands exactly as I gave it yester-
day.
Mr. Nixon: If the Attorney General will
permit me a couple of questions.
He is aware that at noon today the police
chief of Toronto, Mr. Mackey, was reported
as having said that one of the principal links
between the betting community in Toronto
and the Mafia was through the organization
that was discussed in my question— that was
controlled, apparently by Mr. Magaddino.
What of that?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, I am aware, Mr.
Speaker, that they are involved to a certain
degree, in certain areas of gaming. But they
are not overlords of crime in this province.
Those activities of which we are aware,
where they give grounds for prosecution—
these things are followed up.
Mr. Nixon: Well, I might just-
Mr. Speaker: Order! If the hon. member
wishes to place a question, or a supple-
mentary question, he is entitled to, but he
is not entitled to get up and make a speech.
It is right that the rules should be observed
on both sides of this House. The hon. leader
of the Opposition has a further question from
yesterday of the Minister of Health.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Nixon: He is trying to get into your
good graces.
Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Health I
would like to—
Mr. Speaker: Order! The Speaker is quite
aware of the feelings on both sides of the
House but he does certainly take objection to
observations such as the hon. leader has
made. I would hope that there would not
be any repetition of it.
Mr. Nixon: I apologize for that, Mr.
Speaker, and withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Health. Will the Minister explain
the position of the government in providing
subsidized OMSIP for Indians on and off
reservations in Ontario?
Hon. M. B. Dymond ( Minister of Health ) :
Mr. Speaker, OMSIP is available to all resi-
dents of Ontario. It is available to people
of Indian extraction or Indian blood living
off the reservations exactly the same as to
any resident.
For Indians on the reservation the federal
government has traditionally claimed this as
their responsibility and we look to the federal
government to provide the financing, so that
Indians living on reservations can have the
same privilege in this respect as any citizen
of Ontario.
Because of the present dialogue between
the two levels of government we, in Ontario,
have made it clear to all Indians that OMSIP
is readily available to them. We have served
notice on the federal government that they
will be held responsible for the financing of
this.
To that end the Minister of National
Health and Welfare, I understand — and I
emphasize this "I understand" — was to set
up a task force to look into this entire matter
and find a resolution of the problem for all
time.
Mr. Nixon: Might I ask a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker, with the Minister's
permission?
It is true, then, to say that no Indians on
reserve at the present time are covered with
the OMSIP programme?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, I do not believe it
would be true to say that, Mr. Speaker, be-
cause I believe some Indians have applied
for OMSIP on their own, as they have been
applying for other medical services insurance.
I do not think it is widely spread, but on
certain reservations the Indians do have it.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on November
25 in this House, as recorded in Hansard,
pages 109 and 110; with regard to the Proctor-
Silex strike in Picton, I would like to point
out the following matter of personal privilege.
My leader stated as follows,
We sent our representatives to a union meeting
[at Proctor-Silex in Picton]. The member for Scar-
borough East represented the Liberal Party at that
meeting. He was in contact with labour leaders,
leaders in the community. He came back with a re-
port that led us, as Liberals, to support the strikers
in this particular negotiation.
On a point of personal privilege, Mr.
Speaker, on page 110 the member for Brant-
for (Mr. Makarchuk) stated,
NOVEMBER 27, 1968
173
The leader of the Opposition is, Mr. Speaker, mis-
leading the House. The representative from the Lib-
eral Party was not at that meeting.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote directly
from the Belleville Intelligencer of October 3,
1968, to show that I certainly was there.
The Liberal critic for economics and
development visited Picton yesterday—
That was October 2. I would like to point
out that the NDP did not get there until
November 23.
—at the request of Robert Nixon, leader
of the Opposition. He was accompanied
by Nixon's executive assistant, John Morrit,
and after the meeting with union officials
and discussing the current situation, the
Liberal visitors were extremely critical of
the company's stand.
They discussed the situation with George
Hutchens, Canadian IUE president, Jim
Donofrio, union representative. Dm Neil-
son, president of the local United Fanners'
Union, and Dr. Lionel Dockrill, Picton
town councillor.
Mr. Speaker, I was there and I was there a
good six weeks before the NDP got there.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, I will not enter the debate, but we
were there many, many times in advance of—
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member is
on his feet to ask a question.
Mr. MacDonald: I have three questions,
Mr. Speaker, from yesterday. T,he Ministers
are present, two of them I can ask; the third
I shall retain, Mr. Speaker.
The first one is to the Minister of Trade
and Development. When was a "forgiveness
loan" extended to Matthews Conveyor Co.
in Port Hope? For what amount was the
loan? Is the Minister aware that since receiv-
ing the loan the company has laid off 50
workers and further layoffs are currently
under way? Do the conditions of the "for-
giveness loan" permit cutbacks in the work
force?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): The hon. member asked it
yesterday.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, but I did not get an
answer.
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): Mr. Speaker, the equalization
of industrial opportunity loan extended to
Matthews Conveyor Co. in Port Hope was
approved by Order-in-Council on March 7,
1968, and the amount of the loan is $193,033.
The company informs ODC that the cur-
rent layoffs at the plant are of a temporary
nature. It is confidently expected that over the
term of the EIO loans, substantial increases
in employment will occur. If it became
evident over a period of time that the com-
pany in receipt of a forgiveable loan is not
achieving the purposes for which the loan
was given, then the ODC has the right to
require the payment of any portion of the
loan which has not been forgiven.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a supple-
mentary question. Do the conditions normally
implicit in such a loan involve no lay-offs?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No, I do not know how
it can. How can any manufacturer say that
five years from now he will not have a turn-
down of business and have to lay people off?
I do not have a crystal ball. I do not think
even you could do that.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: It will be interesting to
review the implementation of this in the
future.
Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! The hon. mem-
ber will proceed with his questions.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a question
of the Minister of Health.
Has the Minister received a report from
Doctor B. T. Hale, MOH for the Gueiph-
Wellington-Dufferin health unit, regarding
the extreme pollution caused by the Canada
Electric Castings Ltd., a subsidiary of Dayton
Steel? What action does the company intend
to take for the elimination of this pollution?
What time limits have been granted the com-
pany for this remedial action?
In the event of this, or any other plant
being closed down because of intolerable
pollution, is the government developing any
plan for short term assistance while alterna-
tive job opportunities are secured?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the
answer to the first part of the question is
no. Doctor Hale did, I believe, call my office
a few days ago, advising us of a rather tragic
accident that took place in the plant and
which was said to be related in some way to
air pollution.
However, we were in the process then of
surveying this plant because of concern over
174
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
its condition. On November 1, the company
was surveyed, the report was provided setting
out the air pollution control required. On
November 22 of this year, the company was
served with a ministerial order requiring
compliance.
The requirements are in two parts. The
long-term programme gives the company
eight months to complete all work, to bring
the effluence from their operations under
satisfactory control. The short-term work to
be done during the eight-month period re-
quires that within three weeks— that is three
weeks from November 22 of this year— all
accumulated soot around the plant be re-
moved, and within seven weeks they must
have repaired and have operating properly
existing pollution control equipment.
The answer to the fourth part of the ques-
tion, Mr. Speaker, is I know of no policy at
the present time under The Air Pollution
Control Act. I have no such authority. This
is a matter that will be submitted to govern-
ment for consideration.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
worth has a question of the Prime Minister.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. Will the government undertake
to establish a fair capital gains tax for land
speculation, and implement this without
delay?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, the Treas-
urer (Mr. MacNaughton) is presently examin-
ing very closely all areas of taxation. This
is one of them, and when these examinations
are complete the government will make its
decisions as to what it is going to do.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park has a question of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, in light of the
reports in Saturday's Toronto Star that the
$100 million improvement of Sunny brook
Hospital into a teaching hospital is a waste
of money, does the Prime Minister intend to
intervene to stop this project?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, this report
was, at best, a statement of opinion by whom-
ever wrote it, and I am informed that really
it is a kind of planner's forward programme
covering a period of a great many years.
It has not been approved by the Ontario
Hospital Services Commission which has the
power and must, of course, approve every
expenditure made by any hospital and will
only do so after the closest examination. I
do not think therefore, hon. members need be
unduly worried by the import of that report.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park has a question of the Minister of Health.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister
aware that The Department of Health's new
policy of charging for laboratory examina-
tions of diabetics' blood is causing financial
hardship to many elderly pensioners?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: No, Mr. Speaker, I am
not aware of that and if it does exist, it
should not exist. OMSIP, as I have just said
within the past few minutes, is readily avail-
able to every resident of the province of
Ontario regardless of age, state of health or
financial status. If those who are in need
cannot afford to pay for it, all they have to
do is apply and provision has been made by
this government to see to it that they are not
denied medical services because of their in-
ability to pay for it.
I might add that lab services are a benefit
provided under OMSIP and are, therefore,
quite within the reach of any resident of the
province of Ontario.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept a
supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Is the Minister aware that
many such pensioners are covered by PSI,
and PSI has decided that they will not pay
for this charge?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: I would still repeat,
Mr. Speaker, that OMSIP is readily available
to those people.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hum-
ber has a question for the Minister of Health.
Mr. Ben: Yes, I have a number of ques-
tions.
Mr. Speaker: Just the two for the Minister
of Health, at the moment.
Mr. Ben: How many cases of hepatitis
were reported at the Ontario housing com-
plex at Thistletown between November, 1967,
and February, 1968?
What steps has the department taken to
prevent the children at that development
from playing in the garbage and sewers?
When was the area last inspected by offi-
cials of the Minister's department?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, our pro-
vincial communicable disease statistics are
maintained on a municipal level only. On
this basis, from November 1, 1967 to Febru-
ary 29, 1968, 79 cases of hepatitis were
NOVEMBER 27, 1968
175
reported from the borough of Etobicoke. The
office of the medical officer of health of
Etobicoke has advised that the Ontario hous-
ing complex area in general, was the local
address of approximately 53 reported cases
of hepatitis from November 1, 1967, to Feb-
ruary 29, 1968.
Reference to the second part of the ques-
tion: I would point out that the enforcement
of The Public Health Act is the responsibility
of the local authority. We act in a consulta-
tive capacity when requested to do so and
if we have cause to believe that the local
authority is not doing its job.
In this case we do not believe the latter
to be true and we have not been invited in
a consultative capacity.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister
accept a supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Yes.
Mr. Ben: Is not the fact that 53 out of
79 cases of hepatitis originate from one area
in a municipality sufficient to cause the Min-
ister's department to wonder what action, if
any, the municipality is taking to prevent
these epidemics?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, we are
content that the local department of health
took the necessary steps to control this out-
break. It was not an epidemic.
Mr. Ben: I will withdraw the word epi-
demic. I will use the word outbreak.
The next question, Mr. Speaker, I won-
dered if perhaps it should be addressed to
the Minister of Social and Family Services
(Mr. Yaremko), but I will put it to the Min-
ister of Health.
What is the cost per annum of maintaining
a child under the children's aid society?
How many children from the Ontario hous-
ing complex at Thistletown have become
wards of the children's aid society during the
past two years?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member's premise was correct, this should
have been directed to the hon. Minister of
Social and Family Services.
Mr. Speaker: The Speaker's office will re-
direct this and have it answered, if possible,
tomorrow.
The hon. member for Scarborough West
has a question of the Minister of Health.
Mr. Lewis: To the Minister, through you
Mr. Speaker, will the announced 10 per cent
increase in the Ontario Medical Association
fee schedule set for April 1, 1969, be subject
to approval or negotiation by the Minister of
Health or this Legislature?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, in keeping
with all government business, it will be sub-
ject to negotiation by the Minister of Health
and the results of the negotiations will be
referred to the government for decision.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder
Bay.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr.
Speaker, a question for the Minister of Health.
Is the Minister aware of the statement made
by Doctor C. E. Toll, Department of Health
dentist, as reported in the Port Arthur News-
Chronicle of November 22, 1968, that the
state of children's teeth in Nipigon is deplor-
able?
If so, what steps will the Minister take to
ensure proper dental care for the children in
those communities?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, I believe
that the dentist referred to did state that the
teeth of the Nipigon children were severely
neglected. He denies using some extravagant
language as apparently appeared in the press.
However, the railway dental car was in
Nipigon from August 7 to November 18 of
this year. During that time, 1,030 dental
appointments were provided and all of the
children reporting received the dental care
that was necessary.
I would suggest that the state of the kids'
teeth now is pretty good.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downs-
view has a question of the Minister of Social
and Family Services.
Mr. Singer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my question
is this. In view of the fact that evidence at
the coroner's inquest into the death of three-
year-old Theresa Mcintosh disclosed that this
child was probably mistreated before her
death, and that none of this information was
conveyed either to the children's aid society,
the police nor his department, what action
does the Minister intend to take in view of
the provisions of section 41 of The Child
Welfare Act?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Speaker, as I indi-
cated on Monday, we are naturally concerned
about this case. But as I said then, it is still
before a coroner's jury and, as you know, the
inquest resumed today. I believe it would be
178
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
unfair of me to comment in any way while
the jury is discharging its very serious respon-
sibilities.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-
Bruce has a question of the Minister of Agri-
culture and Food.
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister assure the
House that the interest rate on junior farmer
loans will remain at 5 per cent?
How many junior farmer loans are presently
in arrears?
Has there been any noticeable difference in
the number of applications coming before the
board since the federal government an-
nounced the new interest rate for farm credit
loans?
Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agricul-
ture and Food): Mr. Speaker, in reply, the
answer to the first question is that this is a
policy decision of the government and I am
in no position to say yes or no. It is a sta-
tutory matter at the moment.
As to the number of junior farmer loans
presently in arrears, there are 131 junior
farmer loans in arrears, in a total amount of
$125,000. I think this is a remarkably fine
record for the junior fanners of Ontario,
when one considers that there are 5,375 loans
out with a total value of $89,742 million. As
a matter of fact, the loans in arrears represent
2.4 per cent of all mortgages and .07 per
cent of all principal, so arrears are practically
negligible.
Mr. Gaunt: May I ask the Minister a sup-
plementary question?
Is the Minister planning to consider the
present interest rate with the idea of having
it remain the same? Has the Minister given
the matter any thought?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, of course, with
the announcement that the federal govern-
ment has raised their interest rate to 7%
per cent on farm credit corporation loans,
this is a matter of concern to all govern-
ments with the high cost of money today.
Mr. Shulman: Another question of the Min-
ister of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Speaker.
Is the November, 1968 issue of Canadian
Consumer, page 106, correct in its statement
that provincial meat inspection by The De-
partment of Agriculture and Food does not
take place in northern Ontario and portions
of eastern Ontario? And if the answer is
"yes", why not?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have not
seen the quotation to which the hon. mem-
ber refers, but I assume he is quite correct
in what he has said in his question.
Now, there are four counties of eastern
Ontario in which there is not complete meat
inspection. There are eight red-meat plants
left to cover in eastern Ontario, and these
will be done— if they are not done now, they
will be done in the next few days or weeks,
because the inspectors have been trained or
are in the process of being trained, the plants
have been brought up to standard, inspection
will be introduced right away.
In northern Ontario there are 15 red-meat
plants, 13 of which are not under inspection
as yet. Now, it is our plan that as soon as
inspectors can be obtained and trained, then
they will be covered with inspection. How-
ever, the plants themselves come under The
Department of Health supervision and as far
as the plant standards are concerned, they do
meet those qualifications.
Since April 1, 1965, we have covered the
province of Ontario, at least the 38 counties
of Ontario, with meat inspection. We have
employed and trained over 200 meat inspec-
tors. When we introduced the meat inspec-
tion programme, there were no inspectors,
you just could not go out and hire them, we
had to engage them and train them. It takes
at least six months to train inspectors and
you can only take so many at a time, be-
cause the academic training is only part of it.
They have to go out to the various federally-
inspected plants and receive practical train-
ing under the supervision of qualified federal
inspectors. Meat inspection has come about
in Ontario in a very orderly way and I think
in a way that has not disrupted the meat
processing facilities or slaughtering facilities
in the province and yet has provided and
assured the people of Ontario a wholesome
quality product.
Mr. Shulman: Would the Minister permit
a supplementary question? Does he have a
target date for completing the balance of
the areas that have not been covered?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: We have, we hope that
we will be able to accomplish this within the
next few mondis.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy
River.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Agri-
culture and Food.
NOVEMBER 27, 1968
177
1. How many crop insurance salesmen are
there in Rainy River district?
2. Who are they?
3. Do they have occupations other than
that of crop insurance salesmen?
4. How long have they been selling crop
insurance?
5. When did the advertising begin? When
did it end? How many items of advertising
were there?
6. What was the cut-off date for purchas-
ing crop insurance in Rainy River district?
7. How many farmers in Rainy River dis-
trict took advantage of crop insurance?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, there is
one crop insurance agent in the Rainy River
district. It is Mr. M. G. McComb insurance
agency, located in Emo. He does have other
occupations, he is a general insurance agent.
He has been selling crop insurance or offer-
ing it for sale since May 18 of 1967, and I
understand he has been a general insurance
agent for many years.
With regard to advertising, the crop in-
surance commission places advertisements
seasonally in the various papers and publi-
cations throughout the province. I cannot
give the hon. member the exact number of
times where it has been advertised in his
area. If he took from what I said yesterday
that it has been, I am not sure, whether it
was in that paper or what date, I do not
know. But, I do know that it has been
widely advertised, we have placed advertis-
ing in the paper Farm and Country which
I understand, goes into every farm home in
Ontario, that is, advertising on an annual
basis, and this is a monthly publication. The
commission has prepared a pamphlet setting
forth the information and I have a copy of
that pamphlet here. We have circulated this
quite widely through the bankers' association.
We have sent it out to the local banks, to
our agricultural representatives and to any-
one who wishes to use this, including private
members who may be interested in their con-
stituents obtaining crop insurance.
The commission also has an agreement
with all local agents to pay 50 per cent of
the cost of advertising on a local basis for
crop insurance programmes. The information
branch of the Ontario Department of Agri-
culture and Food has circulated press releases
in 1967 and again in 1968, having to do
with the crop insurance programme. These
are provided to all weekly newspapers in
Ontario, to all daily newspapers, to all farm
journals, and to all radio and television
stations. With the expansion of the pro-
gramme, with every expansion of the pro-
gramme, even from its inception, I have
made those announcements in the House and
they have been covered by our own press
gallery, certainly Hansard and by the mem-
bers of the House.
The cut-off date for purchasing crop in-
surance in the Rainy River district was—
there are two dates given— the deadline for
application was May 15, 1968, and the
deadline for seeding of the crop was June 15,
1968. There were four contracts written in
1968, in two of these cases the farmers did
not seed their acreage on which they had
proposed to plant crops. In the remaining
two, both of them filed claims. One of them
was successful in getting his crop off and
so he cancelled his claim, while the other
man lost his crop and it is expected that
he will obtain about $1,000 in insurance
payments.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Will the Minister accept
a supplementary?
In view of the fact that there was only
one insurance salesman who I am sure the
Minister is aware of is also the municipal
clerk of Emo municipality-
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member
would just ask a supplementary question.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Does he not feel that this
programme was not sufficiently advertised
and energetically promoted in the area and
that the farmers of the Rainy River district
will therefore suffer? Does he not feel that
some assistance should be provided for them
this year?
Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is always
very difficult to determine just how much
advertising is enough.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Is one salesman enough?
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Hon. Mr. Stewart: It may well be the case.
I would suggest, though, that with the inter-
est that has been taken or evinced in crop
insurance in many areas throughout the
province that it would be very difficult to
get anybody to accept it on a full-time basis.
Now, I am quite sure that the man— and I
do not know him at all, I did not know he
was the municipal clerk— but, I am sure that
if he is the municipal clerk he is well known
to the farming community of the area and,
as such, that he would be well known, he
being a general insurance agent, and the
amount of crop insurance advertising and the
178
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
publicity it was given, that he would be the
logical source.
Now, our local agricultural representative
has promoted the programmes throughout
the area. I know this to be a fact and I
would like to suggest that if my hon. friend
had displayed as much interest in promoting
the crop insurance programme in his own
local area as he has in asking these questions,
it would likely be much more effective and
widespread in its acceptance by local farmers.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
The hon. member for Wentworth has a
question of the Minister of Transport.
Mr. Deans: Yes, a question of the Min-
ister of Transport. Will the Minister under-
take an immediate investigation of the beha-
viour of truck traffic on the Queen Elizabeth
Highway between Hamilton and Toronto?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, while I am not sure that I
understand just what the hon. member means
by "truck traffic behaviour"—
Mr. Deans: I am asking if you will investi-
gate whether or not the truck traffic on the
Queen Elizabeth Highway is behaving in a
manner suited for that kind of highway and
whether it should not be investigated and
whether action should be taken against them,
to make them behave in the proper way.
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, I was not
quite sure what the hon. member meant by
truck traffic behaviour in this case but it
appeared to me likely, and I think from his
amplification of the statement that I am right
in my assumption, that what he refers to is a
matter of enforcement and would, for that
reason, be a matter under the jurisdiction of
the police. I think if he will pinpoint the
problem and direct his question to the Attor-
ney General it might be more appropriate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the Minister of Transport. Do munici-
palities require the permission of the Minister
and /or the Legislature to temporarily change
the speed limit on public roads for the pur-
pose of car racing?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, racing on
the highways is prohibited. Section 91 of The
Highway Traffic Act sets out that "no person
shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in
a race".
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept a
supplementary question? Does that interpre-
tation of the law mean that the city of To-
ronto will not be able to have car racing on
Lakeshore Boulevard?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: Mr. Speaker, it is a
good supplementary question but I am not
prepared to answer it.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the
Minister would give it his consideration.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wind-
sor-Walkerville has a question of the Minis-
ter of Tourism and Information.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor-Walkerville ) :
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Min-
ister of Trade and Development. Can the
Minister inform the House if his department
has arrived at a decision in regard to maxi-
mum rentals for Ontario Housing Corpora-
tion public housing projects?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member was not
paying attention. He has a question of the
hon. Minister of Tourism and Information.
The hon. Minister of Trade and Develop-
ment comes later. This is a question from
the other day.
Mr. B. Newman: Yes, I have a question
for the Minister of Tourism and Information.
When will the new Ontario government tour-
ist reception centre on Huron Line in Wind-
sor be open on a year-round basis, instead of
the present part-time basis, because of the
increased year-round traffic from the United
States into Ontario over the Ambassador
Bridge?
Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Tourism
and Information): Mr. Speaker, I cannot
give the hon. member a definitive answer at
the moment. We are studying the changing
traffic pattern between the tunnel and the
bridge, both the daily traffic and the more-
than-24-hour, or the tourist traffic. When we
have completed that, we are going to con-
sider our situation at Windsor.
I remind the hon. member that because of
budget considerations it may be we will find
that we should have our operation at the
bridge rather than at the tunnel. It might
be that we could keep both operations open
the year round; it might be that we would
simply change the year-round operation from
the tunnel to the bridge.
Mr. B. Newman: May I ask of the Minister
a supplementary question? Would he con-
NOVEMBER 27, 1968
179
sider the rental of the premises either at the
tunnel or the bridge for a community centre
to the city, if it is not going to be used by
the department?
Hon. Mr. Auld: I am afraid the hon.
member will have to ask the hon. Minister
of Public Works (Mr. Connell).
Mr. Speaker: We have now reached the
hon. Minister of Trade and Development, if
the hon. member would now place his ques-
tion.
Mr. B. Newman: Can the Minister inform
the House if his department has arrived at a
decision in regard to maximum rentals for
Ontario Housing Corporation public housing
projects?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I am g*ad
to see they save the good things for the last.
The hon. member is aware that as of
May 1 of this year, rental rates in geared-to-
income developments under the jurisdiction
of Ontario Housing Corporation were pegged
in accordance with the income of the tenant
at that date.
Discussions are being held on a continuing
basis with senior officials of Central Mortgage
and Housing Corporation with a view to
establishing a new rent scale formula which
will recognize, among other things, current
economic conditions. In view of the com-
plexities involved, no final decision has yet
been reached. The rent freeze was intro-
duced to ensure that no undue hardship
would be incurred by any tenant while this
study is proceeding.
Studies of market rentals for various types
and sizes of accommodation in 12 selected
Ontario municipalities have already been
completed as part of this ongoing analysis.
Mr. B. Newman: May I ask the Minister a
supplementary question? When can we ex-
pect a decision, Mr. Minister?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I cannot tell the hon.
member that. When the surveys are com-
pleted and we finish our discussions with
Central Mortgage and Housing.
Mr. B. Newman: If I may ask another sup-
plementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not
true, then, that the problem has been up for
discussion for well over two years now?
Hon. Mr. Randall: No. The hon. member
will recall we made a change of rent scale in
May, 1967. As far back as last May we froze
all rents at that time so there would not be
any change or any hardship.
Mr. B. Newman: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peter-
borough.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to address my question
to the Minister of Trade and Development.
In his speech on November 20 in Trenton,
the Minister stated that the Ontario Develop-
ment Corporation hopes to extend the "golden
horseshoe" eastward making it a "golden cor-
ridor." Was the Minister announcing govern-
ment policy in the fields of regional govern-
ment and urban development?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I am glad
to see the hon. member for Peterborough is
reading my speeches.
Mr. Pitman: All of them; I always read
them.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Being a practical opti-
mist, I want to assure him that as we look
at the "golden horseshoe" and see the fac-
tories we have in there (and we know that we
have wall-to-wall factories between here and
Windsor), I have always told my associates
and friends that I see no reason— with two
railroads, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Mac-
donald-Cartier Freeway— why we could not
have wall-to-wall factories between here and
Cornwall. While it may not be government
policy, I think the fact that my colleagues
and the Prime Minister okayed the EIO pro-
gramme, which is now making itself felt in
eastern Ontario, we can well call it, without
government policy, the "golden corridor."
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a
supplementary question? That was not a
facetious question, I can assure you. What I
would like to know is whether the loans to be
given under the EIO programme are-
Mr. Speaker: Order!
The hon. member's question about loans is
not supplementary to his original question. If
he wishes to ask a supplementary on his orig-
inal question, he is entitled to.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Speaker, with your indul-
gence, I do suggest that the EIO programme,
as it is related to the creation of the "golden
corridor" is relevant— what I am trying to
establish, with your permission, is whether the
loans that are given are actually approved by
The Department of Trade and Development.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, but the hon. member did
not try to establish anything about loans in
180
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
his original question and therefore he cannot
do it now by way of supplementary.
Mr. Pitman: The Minister in his answer
suggested that these loans were paving the
way to the "golden corridor."
Mr. Speaker: That is quite proper and if
the hon. member wishes to question him
about that on another occasion it is perfectly
in order.
Mr. Pitman: I might just simply ask the
Minister whether the creation of the "golden
corridor" by the ODC is an integral part of
the policy as established by the Cabinet com-
mittee on regional development?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I think
that the EIO is the only programme estab-
lishing what we hope to call the "golden cor-
ridor." I think all departments of the
government are making a contribution to
making it possible to have wall-to-wall fac-
tories between here and Cornwall.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Went-
worth.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, a question for the
Minister of Trade and Development. I no-
ticed, as I read it, that one part was left off.
I hope he will not mind me adding it.
How much land is presently owned by or
under the control of the Ontario Housing
Corporation? How much of this is unserviced
land? Where is the land located— that is the
part that was obviously missed out— and how
much has been spent by this government on
the acquisition of this land?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I will take
the questions as notice and get the informa-
tion for the hon. member.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for
Humber.
Mr. Ben: I have a question for the Minister
of Trade and Development, Mr. Speaker.
Is it true that rents are pegged to income
for every Ontario Housing Corporation tenant,
and that the number of children per house-
hold is irrelevant in the calculation of On-
tario Housing Corporation rents?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, rental rates
for all units under the jurisdiction of Ontario
Housing Corporation which are leased on a
geared-to-income basis are related to a slid-
ing scale which was approved jointly by both
the federal and provincial governments and
has national application.
The factor which determines the applicable
rental rate is the gross family income less
certain exemptions. These exemptions include
family allowance payments, the earnings of
children who are in regular attendance at
recognized educational institutions, the wife's
earnings up to $250 a year and the monthly
earnings of working children in excess of $75
a month.
The hon. member will thus appreciate that,
unlike the private rental sector, it is not the
size of the accommodation that dictates the
rental rate. It is also important to recognize
that in the majority of cases the Ontario
Housing Corporation rental rate includes the
provision of heat, hot water, water, appliances
and very often hydro.
Families with large numbers of children
are naturally allocated more spacious prem-
ises and, because of the size of the family,
use more services for which no additional
charges are made. In these respects, coupled
with the income exemptions, certainly recog-
nition is afforded the number of children in
the household.
As I have already indicated previously, the
rent scale is being reviewed, as it has been
in the past, on a continuing basis. In fact, a
new scale was introduced in 1962 and was
subsequently revised as recently as May,
1967. Concurrently with the present review,
rents were pegged in relation to the tenants'
incomes at May 1 of this year; therefore since
that date any increase in family income has
not affected the tenant's rental rate.
Mr. Ben: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister
accept a supplementary question?
Do I take it from his answer that a family
with seven children, none of them earning
an income, as indicated by you would be
paying exactly the same rental on an income
of, let us say for sake of argument, $5,000, as
a family with two children?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I do not think I quite
understand the question. What we—
Mr. Ben: I believe the Minister indicated
the certain variables on employment, how
many children are working, the income of
the children, and so on.
Let us take the situation of a family with
an income of $5,000 with seven children not
working, earning no income. They would be
paying exactly the same rent on an income
of $5,000 as a family with only two children
not working. Is that not so?
Hon. Mr. Randall: There would be differ-
ent accommodations. In most cases we try
NOVEMBER 27, 1968
181
to accommodate the families and I would
think that in any case where there are
different size accommodations, different in-
comes, the rental scale would be adjusted
accordingly.
Mr. Ben: But if they were the same accom-
modation, which is quite feasible, they would
be paying the same rent?
Hon. Mr. Randall: I would doubt that they
would have the same accommodation with
seven-
Mr. Ben: But if they were—
Hon. Mr. Randall: Perhaps so.
Mr. Ben: If they did have the same accom-
modation?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Perhaps so.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-
Bruce has questions of the Attorney-General.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. the Attorney General: On
page 1114 of the report on civil rights, Jus-
tice McRucr reveals that the city of Toronto
is in direct contravention of its general licens-
ing bylaw in allowing a cab license worth
$300 to be sold for $14,500. He states that
the public is paying through the nose for
this being allowed to continue.
What steps is the Attorney General going
to take in this regard?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, that is a
very free translation of what the Hon. Mr.
McRuer said. I could not find that expression
in his remarks. But, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Sargent: Is that not right? I am sorry.
Look, that is right—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: "Paying through the
nose?"
Mr. Sargent: That is what he said.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I could not find that.
An hon. member: The Minister is in the
wrong volume.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I guess so.
Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing all the
recommendations of Mr. McRuer, including
this one I may say. We have looked at it.
However, I do not contemplate immediate
action, because the matter is presently under
our present law— within the jurisdiction and
control under the Metropolitan Toronto
licensing commission. At the moment that
is where it is and we are reviewing the
recommendation to see what action, if any,
might be taken.
That is all the answer I can give.
Mr. Sargent: A question to the Minister of
Financial and Commercial Affairs (Mr. Rown-
tree).
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member is
now directing questions to the Attorney
General.
Mr. Sargent: Yes, but if he is not here
we will hold this.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, that will be done.
Mr. Sargent: A question to the Attorney
General.
On November 15, Chief Mackey was
quoted in the Toronto Daily Star as admit-
ting that his police had seized five wire
tapping bugs. When questioned on what
authority he had to make these seizures, he
said he had no authority.
Will the Attorney General advise:
1. Why police are allowed to have these
special powers?
2. What is the Attorney General going to
do about it?
3. Will Chief Mackey be called upon by
the Attorney General for a full explanation
of how he can make seizures illegally?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to refer the hon. member for Grey-
Bruce to the question and the answer to the
question asked by the hon. member for
Downsview on November 20 respecting the
very same subject and in very similar terms.
My answer at that time is in Hansard of
November 20.
An hon. member: They do not talk to one
another.
Mr. Sargent: The hon. members talk to
themselves all the time.
An hon. member: Could not talk to a bet-
ter fellow.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, in the
event that the hon. member for Grey-Bruce
has not read Hansard I will repeat what I
said then.
I am advised that these devices were given
to police by employees of the Bell Telephone
Company of Canada, who removed them
from their lines since they contravened— the
182
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
attachment of them contravened— the pro-
visions of The Bell Telephone Act of Canada.
The three following questions are really
not relevant.
The police did not seize them in the sense
of seizure. The Bell Telephone Act of Can-
ada makes it wrongful— an offence— to inter-
cept a message. Telephone employees found
these devices attached to their lines, they
took them off— which quite rightly they
should do— and they turned them over to
the police.
As I pointed out to the hon. member for
Downsview who questioned me on November
20, nobody has come forward to say "these
are our devices." I do not think they are
likely to come forward, because they are
illegal under The Bell Telephone Act. The
police have the devices in their possession
and there is nothing much more we can do.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques-
tion of the Attorney General.
1. Why was the death of Kenneth Hames
on October 29 in the Scarborough General
Hospital not reported until five days after-
ward?
2. Is it true that Mr. Haines was refused
admission to another hospital shortly before
his death?
3. Why is the coroner's office not holding
an inquest into this unusual death?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, I shall
have to take this question as notice but I
can promise an answer, I am sure, tomorrow.
The question was only received in my office
about the one o'clock hour and it required
some inquiry to get the proper answers.
Mr. Shulman: I have another question of
the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker.
Is an inquest to be held into the death of
Mrs. Dorothy Gertrude Davis, age 31, of
Oshawa, who disappeared July 20, 1968, and
whose body was recovered near Bradford on
August 19, 1968?
Question two. If so, what date has been
set?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Speaker, this mat-
ter is under investigation by the criminal
investigation branch of the Ontario Provincial
Police. Just as soon as that investigation is
completed it will be reported to the coroner,
who will decide then as to the need for an
inquest.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept a
supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Has not this investigation
been going on for a very long time and, if
you agree, when do you expect the results
of the investigation?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker,
I cannot be too specific in replying. All I
can say is that the investigation is being
carried on by the CIB of the Ontario Pro-
vincial Police. I would expect it will be
concluded shortly, but I am not as informed
of the details of these things as the hon.
member seems to expect that I might be.
I cannot, I think, in a specific case, be
informed of all details. I can only answer
as I did.
Investigation of this is carried on by the
criminal investigation branch. Just as soon
as that is over, the ordinary routine will be
followed of reporting the whole matter to
the coroner, who will make the decision as
to the necessity of an inquest.
Mr. Shulman: In the form of a second
supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the delay
in the investigation have anything to do with
the body being found on the property of
Mrs. Viola MacMillan?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I should not think so,
Mr. Speaker, but, again, this will come out,
I presume, in the report of the criminal
investigation branch.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park may place his question to the Minister
of Highways, who is next on the list.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, can the city
of Toronto close the Lake Shore Road to
normal vehicular traffic for brief periods on
a regular basis without the permission of the
Minister?
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, the Lake Shore Road is under
the jurisdiction of the municipality of Metro
Toronto and therefore, the city of Toronto
does not have jurisdiction.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister accept a
supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Can Metro close this road
without the Minister's permission?
NOVEMBER 27, 1968
183
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, Metro
Toronto can close the Lake Shore Boulevard,
under conditions referred to in the question,
without the approval of the Minister.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Why did
not the Minister say that long ago?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar-
borough East.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have three
questions of the Minister of Education (Mr.
Davis), one of which is fairly urgent.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is now
asking his question of the Minister of High-
ways. The Minister of Education is not in
his seat and the questions will have to be
held over.
Mr. T. Reid: A question of the Minister
of Highways.
When, if at all, did the Minister reply to
the request of the Metropolitan Toronto
transportation commission to meet with the
commission, or its chairman, to discuss an
immediate and a long-run strategy of plan-
ning of Metro and provincial transportation
facilities, especially in the Metropolitan
region?
When, if at all, is the Minister meeting
with the commission or its chairman to dis-
cuss these problems and to insure that tax-
payers' dollars are not being wasted by use-
less duplication?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, that is
not exactly as I have the question.
I cannot give the date of the reply but I
can tell you that I met with the chairman
and the commission on April 30, not on this
specific problem which the member discussed
here.
To the second part, what I have is, "When
is the Minister meeting with the commission
or its chairman to discuss these problems?"
I have had no request that I know of for a
further meeting.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, if I could ask
the Minister a supplementary question: In
the report in the Globe and Mail of Novem-
ber 26, 1968, there is an article entitled
"Lack of data from province angers Metro".
I was wondering if the Minister had seen this
article upon which my questions were based?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: No, Mr. Speaker, I
have not seen that.
I have the reply, Mr. Speaker, to a ques-
tion asked by the member for Nipissing (Mr.
R. S. Smith) yesterday, which I would like
to answer. The work project numbers quoted
in the question under item 1 was advertised
today, November 27, and tenders will be
opened on January 8, 1969.
Mr. Ben: On a point of order. Mr.
Speaker, I think you made a point not too
long ago that the government should not be
incensed if the members put questions to
them, but do not ask them all at once. Now,
Mr. Speaker, the members who ask questions
have to abide by the exigencies, and if the
Minister is not in his chair the question is
not asked.
Under the same reasoning, should not the
Minister wait to answer a question until the
member who asked it or who submitted it
is in his seat to ask a supplementary?
Mr. Speaker: This question has arisen
earlier in the first session of this House, and
at that time it was my opinion that the mem-
bers felt that the questions which they asked
were of such urgent public importance that
the answer should be made available at the
earliest possible moment.
Indeed, only yesterday the hon. member
for Scarborough East (Mr. T. Reid), who
was going to be absent, to make sure of the
point dropped me a note and asked me if
I would have the answer made public by
the Minister in his absence.
Therefore, as far as I was concerned, I
felt that that might well be the situation in
this case. But I have no objection as far as
the Chair is concerned to the questions being
withheld until the member is present in the
same manner as the questions to be asked
of a Minister are held until he is present.
So if it is the wish of the official Opposition
that this answer be retained until the hon.
member for Nipissing is here, then certainly
I am sure the Minister will do so and I will
so rule.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I think we might
have the answer.
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The work project numbers quoted in the
question under item 1 was advertised today,
November 27, and tenders will be opened on
January 8, 1969. This contract will include
the 4.2 miles covered by the work project
numbers.
And to the second part: It is covered in the
first answer.
i
184
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
And to the third part: The highway con-
struction programme for the year 1968-69
listed this work as being placed under con-
tract in this fiscal year and no reference was
made in the programme book which stated
that this large contract would be completed
in the fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sand-
wich-Riverside has a question of the hon.
Minister of Lands and Forests.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): A
question of the Minister of Lands and Forests:
What action is the lands and forests district
office in Aylmer taking to ensure that the
fallow deer on Peche Island in the Detroit
River at Windsor are neither abandoned nor
allowed to escape into a hostile environment?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon.
member for Sandwich-Riverside, fallow deer
are not native to Ontario nor do they survive
in a wild state.
Just to make sure that we all understand,
fallow deer are native to the Mediterranean
area, they are quite small animals, are pri-
vate property and are excluded from the
provisions of The Game and Fish Act by-
section 2(a) and a definition in section 15 of
the Act. The abandonment or ill treatment
of such animals would be an offence under
Xhe Criminal Code. We have no knowledge
of their presence on Peche Island and the
owners were under no obligation to report
them to us.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury East has a question of the Minister of
Labour.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Is there
any reason why members of the Legislature
cannot be covered by workmen's compensa-
tion during the performance of their duties
as MPPs so that their families will be in
receipt of survivor benefits in case of per-
manent disablement or fatal accident?
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour): Mr.
Speaker, the answer to that is yes. To provide
this coverage would require changes in the
legislation.
Mr. Martel: A supplementary question. If
that is all that is necessaiy, would the Min-
ister be so kind as to introduce this legis-
lation?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Well, Mr. Speaker, while
members work hard no doubt, nevertheless
I do not think we fall within the group of
workmen that the Legislature meant to assist
by this Act.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Oxford
has a question of the Minister of Municipal
Affairs.
Mr. G. W. Innes (Oxford): Mr. Speaker,
to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Can the
Minister give an indication to the House of
the approximate cost of publicizing the tax
rebate programme to the province in terms
of dollars and cents?
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the member will
appreciate the expenditures are by no means
complete. The total expenditures for admini-
stration, information and publicity, advertis-
ing, to October 31, 1968, amounted to
$208,700. Perhaps if I gave the latest esti-
mated figures to the end of March, the end
of the fiscal year, it might be helpful to the
members. Administration, about $172,000;
advertising, $123,000; distribution of the leaf-
lets and so on, about another $150,000; for
a total of $450,000, which is less than half
of what we originally estimated.
Mr. Innes: Would the Minister accept a
supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.
Mr. Innes: Could the Minister give any
indication of the costs of administrating the
tax rebate in each municipality? The ad-
ministration costs?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High
Park.
Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the
Minister of Municipal Affairs: Does the city
of Toronto require the permission of the
Minister and/or the Legislature to go ahead
with the proposed CNE-Lakeshore auto race
track?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I
would say to the member that— he is asking
questions in various parts of the House about
this— perhaps it would be best to give a
little bit of a summary of what has gone on.
There are three Acts involved administered
by three different departments, The Munici-
pal Act, The Highway Improvement Act,
and The Highway Act itself, administered by
three different departments, all of whom
have solicitors of their own-
Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): I know
it is insignificant, but it is Transport.
NOVEMBER 27, 1968
185
Hon. Mr. McKeough: All right. These
Acts all bear one way or another, or do not
bear one way or another. There have been
a number of opinions collected from depart-
mental people, and within the last few days
they have all been dumped into the hands of
the Attorney General. The Attorney General,
in due course I am sure, will advise the
various departments so that we will be in a
position to answer adequately the member's
question.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Minister answer
my question when he hears from the Attorney
General?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will be delighted.
There are other people asking, too, and I
will be delighted to answer them.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sud-
bury East has a question for the Minister of
Mines.
Mr. Martel: Will the Minister of Mines
instruct the Fecunis Mines immediately to
have soundproof curtains installed in their
machine shop to enable men to work there
without having to seek medical attention
before they all succumb to industrial deaf-
ness?
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Mr. Speaker, this matter was first brought
to my attention, I think, last Thursday by
the hon. member for Nickel Belt and he
turned over some communications and some
material to me. We have transmitted this
to our field staff in Sudbury— our safety
engineer, our mining engineer— and they are
investigating the alleged occurrences now. I
point out to the hon. member that Fecunis
Mines, of course, is geographically located
within the riding of Nickel Belt. If the hon.
member wishes I can communicate with—
Mr. Martel: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member has
a point of order.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have in my
hand a letter from the union in question-
Air. Speaker: The hon. member will state
his point of order.
Mr. Martel: I am coming to my point of
order. The—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will state
his point of order.
Mr. Martel: The Minister of Mines was
making reference to the fact that this ques-
tion which I raised comes from a riding
other than my own. The point I am making
is that the headquarters of this company is
in my riding and the union in question wrote
me. If the Speaker would let me, I would
quote the letter in which they asked me to
raise this matter.
Mr. Speaker: Order! There is no question
in Mr. Speaker's mind that any member is
entitled to raise any question with respect
not only to the people in his own area that
he represents, but any other area of public
interest in Ontario.
The hon. Minister is likewise within his
rights, as far as the chair is concerned, to
refer to those others who had raised the
same points with him when answering the
question, and that is what he has done. The
hon. Minister will complete his statement.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am
not debating that point, nor arguing that
point; I agree with the hon. member. If he
had not been quite so rude he would have
heard me say that because it is in the hon.
member's riding I intend transmitting the
results of this report to him. At the same
time, I would be very glad to transmit the
result of this report to him, if he wants it
that way, but if he is going to play it in some
other way, then perhaps I had better ask
the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr.
Demers) first because he asked me the ques-
tion first.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the leaders of the
government and official Opposition and the
third party might sometime before noon, if
possible, tomorrow, advise me whether deal-
ing with the questions in the manner we
have done today or in the manner we have
previously done by members, is more satis-
factory to them because I wish to proceed
in the manner which is best for the House
and for each member of the House on both
sides.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order I think it is, while I am in
an argumentative mood, may I add my
vigorous objection, being one of the lowest
men on the totem pole on this side, to that
procedure.
I am being very serious, sir, when I think
the rights of the private members are being
transgressed by your ruling. I think it is up
to the private members of this House to ask
what they want, of whom they want, when
they want, sir.
Mr. Speaker: The question of procedure
here is one which originally caused a great
186
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
deal of difficulty and a great deal of unneces-
sary noise and improper debate. It has been
running very well today and it also went
well yesterday. The chair has made no ruling;
the chair is merely requesting to know which
way is preferable so far as the House is
concerned.
The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin
has a point of order or a point of personal
privilege or an answer to a question, I am
not sure which.
Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday when I was out of the
House on water resources business, a ques-
tion was directed to the Minister of Energy
and Resources Management (Mr. Simonett)
regarding a letter that I signed. He said that
he would ask me to reply to the question.
The question asked by the hon. member for
Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) was:
Can the Minister advise the House as to
the cost to the government of Ontario,
through the Ontario Water Resources Com-
mission, of the mailing on August 22nd, 1968,
of a news release regarding the Root family
reunion, the covering letter for which was on
the letterhead of the commission over the
signature of the vice-chairman of the com-
mission?
The question is in two parts. The second
part is— can the Minister advise further how
this release has advanced the work of the
commission?
The answer to the first part. The cost of
mailing the release— stamps, letterheads and
envelopes— was $1.30.
The answer to the second part is, I think
everyone interested in the work of the water
resources commission would like to know
something of the background of the people
who serve the commission. Every member
of the Legislature and every arm of govern-
ment is interested in public relations. It
would be very difficult to estimate in dollars
and cents the public relations impact of the
news release that referred to seven genera-
tions of a family that has pioneered in many
areas of development in Ontario.
I might add that the news item was car-
ried in its entirety in about ten papers and
many thousands of people had the benefit of
the news item. What the benefit to the water
resources commission would be, I am not
prepared to say.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary question
which I might put with respect to the infor-
mation given as to cost. I am wondering
how many of these releases were sent out to
the media.
Mr. Root: These released went to approxi-
mately 20 news outlets. I have 20 news out-
lets that I release news to and I am not sure
even whether the whole 20 were covered.
I am not sure whether the radio and tele-
vision stations were covered— it would prob-
ably be 15, maybe 20.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, may I say that one of the
papers to which the hon. member for Well-
ington-Dufferin has referred was the Beams-
ville Express in the riding of Lincoln because
that is where the Root family started, in the
county of Lincoln, and we are very, very
proud of this fact.
Mr. Speaker, I have an answer for the hon.
member for Sudbury with respect to the
revenues of the liquor control board for a
certain period of this year.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we might ascertain
if that question should be answered in the
absence of the member.
Mr. Nixon: I think we would be glad if
he did so.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister will then
give the answer.
Hon. Mr. Welch: During the period June
26, 1968, to October 31, 1968, the total rev-
enue of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario
amounted to approximately $152,665,003. The
total revenue for the same period in 1967
amounted to approximately $110,685,000.
These figures, with respect to the 1968
period, of course, reflect the price change of
January, 1968, together with the normal in-
crease of sales of about 5 per cent, together
with other events referred to by the hon.
member in his question.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Before the orders of
the day may I make one very brief comment
in regard to questions. I think it used to be
the custom here to ask the question whether
or not the Minister was in his seat; then he
answered it as soon as he got into his seat,
whether the man who asked the question was
in his seat or not.
I always thought that was a fairly reason-
able sort of a way of getting questions dealt
with expeditiously because then they were
not held in abeyance until it was possible to
match a private member and a Minister. We
might think of reverting to that particular
NOVEMBER 27, 1968
187
routine. Personally I find the question period
very stimulating and very interesting, and
sometimes very entertaining, so I would do
nothing to limit it in any way.
I would like to take this opportunity to
bring the hon. members up to date on the
gift Ontario has made to help alleviate the
suffering resulting from the war between the
Nigerians and Biafrans. As I announced on
October 4, the government, and I think all
members of this Legislature, are deeply moved
by the privations and misery created by this
conflict. This was referred to by the leader
of the Opposition yesterday in his remarks.
Accordingly, as a government, we arranged
to send a gift of food and hospital supplies to
Nigeria as a humanitarian gesture in the name
of the people of Ontario. These foodstuffs,
which will be distributed by the Red Cross,
consisted of 50,000 pounds of powdered skim
milk; 10,000 pounds of honey; 10,000 pounds
of tinned cheese, and 2,000 bushels of dried
corn. All these goods were drawn from
stocks available here in the province.
The entire gift and its shipment to Nigeria
was arranged in close consultation with Cana-
dian Red Cross Society and with the federal
government. I would like to say a word of
thank you on behalf of Ontario both to the
federal government and to the Canadian Red
Cross for the co-operation we received in
making sure that our gift became operative,
so to speak.
You might be interested to know that Air
Transport Command provided a plane which
flow the hospital supplies to Halifax, in order
that they could be put aboard a ship there.
The total direct cost to the government, for
the goods and their shinment, will be in the
neighbourhood of $20,000; the actual value
of the goods, of course, is considerably higher
than that. I am informed that all these sup-
plies have arrived in Lagos, and Fernando Po.
I wo-uM like to read a telegram that has
been received from the Canadian High Com-
missioner in Lagos, dated November 14.
Emergency relief supplies Silver Crest
cargo. Cargo for Lagos was transferred offi-
cially today to representatives of the Inter-
national Committee of the Red Cross, and
the federal Ministry of Health. Please ad-
vise the Government of Ontario both repre-
sentatives expressed warm appreciation for
contributions from Ontario, and from the
Government of Canada.
Small though this effort might be in the total
sum of misery caused by this war, I thought
you might be interested to know that it is on
the spot and doing what good it can.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The first order, resum-
ing the adjourned debate on the amendment
to the motion for an address and reply to the
speech of the hon. Lieutenant-Governor at
the opening of the session.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr.
Speaker, economic development is a matter of
vital concern in the province of Ontario today.
Only with adequate economic development
are we going to have job opportunities to
meet our growing population; are we going
to have adequate wealth to be able to meet
the growing services which our people are
requesting.
I do not propose at the moment to deal
with the broader issues of economic develop-
ment, but rather to focus on what I would
describe as a rather fundamental aspect,
namely research and development.
Two-thirds of the scientific knowledge in
the world today has been discovered within
the past 20 years. Fully 90 per cent of the
research scientists since the beginning of time
are living today. Now, Mr. Speaker, these
two dramatic facts serve to underline that for
the first time in history, humanity has entered
an era of permanent scientific and industrial
revolutions.
Increasingly, therefore, research and devel-
opment are the key to economic development.
But Canada lags far behind other industrial
nations. Taken as a whole, the federal indus-
try minister stated a year or so ago,
Canadian manufacturing industry in 1963
displayed a research intensity of approxi-
mately 1 per cent, which was equivalent to
research and development expenditures of
about one-half cent per dollar of sales.
By comparison, British industry spends
three times, Sweden four times and the
United States over six times relative to in-
dustrial output.
It would appear that a research intensity
for manufacturing industry of 3 per cent—
that is almost three times the current figure
—is required to bring Canada more equally
in line with comparable industrialized
countries.
Now that was the view of Mr. Drury who
was at that time the Minister of Industry.
188
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, one single act
of the federal government, cancellation of the
Arrow project, cut research and development
expenditures by industry by more than one
half; from 1959 to 1960, the year in which
that action was taken, industry's share of our
national R and D expenditure dropped from
29 per cent to 13 per cent.
Despite much more generous tax exemp-
tions and grants through the Industrial Re-
search and Development Incentives Act—
(IRDIA)— industry's share of R and D ex-
penditures has never recovered from that
single blow; the latest figures indicate it
amounts to some 24 per cent national expen-
ditures.
I recall the disastrous consequences of that
black Friday when the Arrow project was
cancelled, not only because the impact was
greatest in Ontario (where the majority of the
300 companies in the industrial complex
which sustained it were situated) but because
the disaster has been repeated ten years later.
One after another, imaginative scientific proj-
ects have been discarded.
In 1966, McGill's high altitude research
programme, familiarly known as HARP, was
lost when American funds were cut off. A
few months ago the federal government
scrapped the $22 million Queen Elizabeth
Observatory, out in British Columbia. A few
weeks ago, the $155 million intense neutron
generator— or ING as the project is popularly
known— fell victim to Ottawa's austerity pro-
gramme. As a result, Canada's scientific com-
munity looks to the future with a mixture of
disillusionment and foreboding.
There may be sound reasons, Mr. Speaker,
for the cancellation of a programme such as
ING, but as Dr. W. G. Schneider, president
of the National Research Council, has said:
"If so, the public has a right to know. I
feel," said Dr. Schneider, "that when deci-
sions of this kind are made a rationale should
be given. If they are handled in this way it
tends to destroy morale. Everyone will al-
ways wonder what's going to— whose is going
to get the chop next."
In fact, Canada has no overall scientific
policy. We are staggering around in the dark
in this issue. Although the science council
was set up two years ago, the hon. C. M.
Drury who is not only president of the
Treasury Board, but chairman of the Privy
Council committee on Scientific and Indus-
trial Research, stated recently that the gov-
ernment has not yet received the science
council's recommendations for priorities.
There is an increasingly urgent need for
the formulation of a scientific policy for
Canada. Until the federal government ends
the confusion and uncertainty, it is admit-
tedly difficult for Ontario or any other
province to decide intelligently what its sup-
plementary programme should be.
However, the Ontario government cannot
afford to delay in clarifying the guidelines of
its own R and D programme simply because
the federal government has failed dismally to
provide a national context. What is more, the
Ontario government need not delay because
there is a growing consensus, first, as to the
basic misdirection of past scientific policy,
and second, where the future emphasis should
be.
Let me examine briefly each of these in
turn, because out of such an analysis emerges
the guidelines for a more effective R and D
programme, both federal and provincial.
Canada spends proportionately more on
basic and applied research, much less on
development. The following comparative
figures reveal the dramatic imbalance in our
programme: 18 per cent of our research and
development funds went to basic research; 42
per cent went to applied research; and only
40 per cent to development.
By comparison, the United States spent
only 10 per cent on basic research; 22 per
cent on applied research and the lion's share
of 68 per cent on development. Britain's
figures were nearly identical: 10 per cent on
basic research; 24 per cent on applied re-
search, and 62 per cent on development. In
short, Canada is spending more money to
generate new technology than to employ it.
There is good reason to believe that as a
relatively small country, we cannot afford
that kind of a programme. It is misconceived
in terms of meeting the urgent needs of
our economic development.
Admittedly, Mr. Speaker, Canada has an
obligation to add to the world's store of
knowledge and new technology, but within
the limitations of our expenditures, we have
more than met our obligations in this connec-
tion. The need is for more applied research,
even more for development which provides
economic developments.
Viewed in this context, the proposed expen-
diture of some $155 million in the ING pro-
gramme may well have been misconceived
from the very outset. Certainly there was
sharp controversy in the scientific world, with
many people arguing that this was too great
an investment in a project that, at best,
would have had long term economic benefits.
NOVEMBER 27, 1968
189
For example, writing in the October issue
of The Science Forum, Dr. R. F. Howlett,
who was until last August head of the Na-
tional Research Council's division of applied
physics, puts the case this way:
Too often the argument in favour of
a costly project with heavy continuing com-
mitments is good science and excites the
imagination. Too rarely is there a case
to support its direct relevance to Canada's
future needs, and a realistic appraisal of
the probable value to the country as com-
pared with the same money spent on some
other projects.
In short, Mr. Speaker, Canada's research pro-
gramme should be less of a hobby of the
scientist, and more of the hand-maiden of
economic developments.
Dr. Howlett suggests that the broad lines
of scientific policy should be worked out in
collaboration with Economic Council of Can-
ada. Now this persuasive line of argument,
bolstered by the statistics indicating the
severe imbalance in our research and devel-
opment expenditures, points clearly to the
need for a much heavier emphasis on devel-
opment. This is not a plea for forsaking pure
research, but for a more judicious choice of
projects, from which the spin-off to the
economy would be greater and more im-
mediate.
Dr. O. M. Solandt, chairman of the Science
Council of Canada, has suggested pro-
grammes to be undertaken in the fields of
space research, transportation, water re-
sources, computer application and technology
and northern resources, and one which I
must confess, captures my imagination,
namely human ecology, especially as it refers
to life in urban environment.
These are the general lines along which a
national scientific policy should be formu-
lated. In my view, the Ontario government
should exert every conceivable pressure for
such a formulation and clear statement.
Meanwhile, to the considerable extent that
we are free to shape our own research and
the development programme, we should seek
to achieve, not only its expansion through
private as well as public funds but with that
balance of expenditure, which will do more
than any other single thing to assure the
necessary economic development, to provide
new jobs and let those below the poverty line
share in our rising standards of living.
Lest anyone think that I exaggerate the
importance of a research and development
programme, let me remind the hon. mem-
bers that leading economists have shown that
technological change has been a major factor
in the great increase in output per unit of
labour and capital that has taken place in
most industrialized countries in this century.
It is now convincingly documented that only
about 20 per cent of the gain in labour pro-
ductivity has come from the more intensive
use of capital. About 80 per cent has come
from the use of new technologies and the
greater competence of workers and managers.
In a growing proportion of our industry
today, survival in the rat race of the modern
markets stems directly from the innovation
which research and development programmes
assure. Not only do such programmes speed
up the pace of scientific discovery, but they
shorten the gap between the laboratory and
the production line. This is the fundamental
mark of a modern economy. The U.S. chemi-
cal industry, for example, now considers it
normal that half its business is based on
products that did not exist only ten years
ago.
Now let me narrow the focus of my con-
siderations more strictly, Mr. Speaker, to the
province of Ontario. From the point of view
of economic development, the important
thing is not only that the total amount of
research and development be adequate, but
also that it be spent for the right purposes.
Professor P. M. S. Blackett, president of
the Royal Society of Great Britain, argued
two years ago that only the U.S.A. can re-
main nearly self-sufficient in technology—
that certainly Britain cannot. It follows,
therefore, that for countries like Britain to
achieve rapid economic growth, it is impor-
tant to use qualified scientists and engineers
to apply existing scientific and technical
knowledge and know-how to produce more
competitive products, rather than to create
new knowledge.
If that be true of Britain, it is certainly true
of the province of Ontario. In fact, a recent
report of the Science Council of Canada em-
phasized this very point. A major failing of
Canadian science in the past, it stated, has
been that it performed too much basic re-
search remote from the training of new
scientists and too much applied research far
from the point of innovation. The report
added that there has been a tendency to fail
to carry through work from research and
development to production and use.
With this emphasis in mind, there are
three aspects of our R and D programme on
which I would like to comment briefly. They
are key to the formulation of guidelines for
expanding Ontario's programme— something
190
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
to which I intend to return later in this
session.
The first is a new development— the estab-
lishment of industrial research institutes in
three of Ontario's universities— Waterloo,
Windsor and McMaster— through grants by
the federal Department of Industry. These
research institutes are designed to use the
best local resources of a given area and bring
to them the scientific backing which is most
likely to contribute to its economy. Such a
close relationship of the university with
industry will inevitably result in the desired
emphasis on applied research and develop-
ment.
There are dangers, Mr. Speaker, involved
in such research institutes, either through
injury to the basic work of the university or
through an unfair competition with the On-
tario Research Foundation for the limited
R and D dollars. These dangers, once again,
I would like to explore during consideration
of the estimates later this year. But, on
balance, it is my view that these research
institutes are new and important develop-
ments—so much so that if they prove suc-
cessful, there is a regional need, an urgent
regional need, for their extension to the
Lakehead, to the Laurentian University area
in the Sudbury basin and to some centre in
eastern Ontario. Either through extending
the federal programme or, if the federal
government will not— through supplementing
it by a provincial programme.
Secondly, so important is the basic role
of research and development, and so hesi-
tant has the Canadian industry been in
initiating its own research, that there is a
legitimate role for the expansion of govern-
ment programmes. The tendency in Canada
has been to concentrate an undue amount of
research in government laboratories, thereby
discouraging industry from starting or ex-
panding its own research facilities. For
example, in the United States, government
laboratories use only 15 per cent of their
national research and development funds;
in the United Kingdom 26 per cent; in
Canada the figure is 36 per cent. This tends
to reduce the likelihood of economic returns,
because the research is not closely enough
related to possible economic production and
returns.
How can the provincial government play
a role in shifting the emphasis to applied
research and development? There may be
many answers and many views on this, but
my own impression is that this might best
be achieved through an expansion of the work
of the Ontario Research Foundation. It is a
highly respected organization, in close touch
with industry. At the moment the province
matches, dollar for dollar, the revenue which
ORF receives from the industry through its
contract research. It would seem to me
advisable to expand any R and D programme
through the established machinery of the
ORF, with an even greater emphasis on en-
couraging the development of private indus-
trial research facilities within the industry.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I find it exciting to
contemplate the possibilities of developing in
Ontario the kind of close working relation-
ship between universities and industry which
has resulted in such a phenomenal economic
growth in New England, or in Texas, or in
California. It seems to me that we have all
the ingredients for this kind of development
here in the province of Ontario— in the Sheri-
dan Park complex with the Ontario Research
Foundation intimately tied in with it; in the
close relationship which such research facili-
ties should be able to establish with so many
of our established universities which are
geographically near at hand; and on the
research institutes, which have now been
established in three Ontario universities.
The very fact that these facilities are not
all concentrated in one place could result in
a desirable decentralization of industrial
development, thereby assisting in a more
effective regional development, an objective
that we all pay lip service to, but which gets
fulfilled only to a painfully small degree.
Certainly this combination of management
know-how, university brains, and research
finance by private and public funds, is the
key to dynamic, economic development, so
much so, that Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber,
in his recent book, the "American Challenge",
warns that it is resulting in a virtual take-
over of the European Common Market by
U.S.A. interests.
It surely represents the key to the kind of
economic development which Ontario must
have to provide the job opportunities for its
growing population and the expanded wealth
to meet our growing needs in this province.
Maintenant, M. l'Orateur, pendant le mois
d'octobre, j'ai passe deux semaines a suivre
un cours d'immersion totale dans le frangais.
Je veux faire rapport a l'Assemblee que
c'etait une experience des plus satisfaisantes.
Je suis convaincu que pour celui qui est
interese, et qui a quelques facilites pour
les langues, le bilinguisme est un but now
seulement realisable mais franchement exci-
tant.
NOVEMBER 27, 1968
191
An cas ou il y en aura ceux qui pensent
que le cours n'est qu'une rigolade, permettez-
moi de vous desabuser. Nous etions debout
avant sept heures chaque matin pour dejeuner
a sept heures quinze. Les cours debutaient
a huit heures et continuaient jusqu'a onze
heures trente. Les cours reprenaient a deux
heures et se poursuivaient jusqu'a cinq
heures. Le soir, encore trois heures de cours
— de sept heures trente jusqu'a dix heures
trente.
Pendant les repas et les periodes de recre-
ation, nous causions en francais. Enfin, dans
les quelques instants qui nous restaient avant
le coucher on nous obligeait de lire quelques
chapitres du "Compte de Monte Cristo", et
d'en faire un r6sume ccrit en frangais.
En somme, M. l'Orateur, c'etait une baig-
nade sans merci dans le francais. Comme
disait un de nos instituteurs avec beaucoup
d'a propos, c'etait un lavage de cerveau en
regie.
Toutefois, gardons-nous d'exagerer: pen-
dant les classes ici a Queen's Park, nous avons
complete huit a dix lecons. A la fin de la
baignade nous en avions complete quinze.
Le cours complet comprend trente-deux
lecons. Done pour ceux d'entre nous qui ont
pratique l'immersion totale, nous sommes tout
juste qu'a mi-chemin. Ne demandez pas de
nous d'etre parfaits bilingues— pas si tot!
Mon experience personnelle mise a part,
je suis devenu encore plus interesse dans tout
le probleme de l'enseignement des langues.
Aujourd'hui, en Ontario, il y a des milliers
de nouveaux Canadiens qui prennent des
cours d'anglais pour maitriser la langue du
monde du travail. Je me suis demande
jusqu'a quel point nous nous servons de ces
nouvelles methodes, et si l'approche generale
etait toujours l'etude plutot morne et vieux
jeu de la grammaire— la methode qui s'est
montree si peu efficace pour developper la
maitrise d'une langue.
Apres enquete, je me rends compte que
l'Ontario, fort heureusement, s'est acquis en
1963 un comite des langues modernes qui
est a la fois actif et clairvoyant. Ce comite
opere sous les auspices de l'lnstitut Ontarien
des Programmes d'etudes.
Depuis 1966, ce travail est continue par
l'entremise du centre des langues modernes
qui fait parti de l'linstitut Ontarien pour les
Etudes en Education. Celui-ci est le seul
institut au Canada anglais qui a comme tache
l'etude des langues. II est a esperer qu'a par-
tir de ses efforts, le Canada pourra realiser
da vantage son heritage linquistique.
De plus, on m'informe que les cours d'an-
glais offerts par la section de la citoyennete
aux nouveaux Canadiens se servent de ces
nouvelles methodes. Done, nous pouvons
esperer que les methodes actuelles auront
comme resultat un bilinguisme plus pousse
que fut le cas pendant l'epoque du "high
school French" auquel la plupart d'entre nous
fut expose.
Ceci m'amene directement au sujet de
prime importance: celui des efforts de l'On-
tario a devenir une province bilingue et ainsi
soulager les tensions qui menacent de faire
sauter la Confederation.
Ce gouvernement a fait sien le but trace
dans le rapport de la Commission Royale sur
le Bilinguisme et le Biculturalisme. II y a
bientot un an, le premier ministre annoncait
la creation de quatre groupes de travail: un
pour faire enquete sur l'a propos de mettre
en vigueur les recommandations concernant
l'administration de la justice; un deuxieme sur
l'Assemblee et les statuts provinciaux; un troi-
sieme sur l'administration municipale; et un
quatrieme sur la fonction publique provin-
cial.
On m'informe que ces groupes de travail
ont tous acheve leurs taches et que leurs rap-
ports se trouvent maintenant aux mains du
gouvernement. Je demande au premier mi-
nistre quand il a l'intention de remettre ces
rapports a cette Chambre, et ce que le gou-
vernement envisage a faire a la lumiere de
leurs recommandations.
Evidemment, ces etudes sont d'une impor-
tance fondamentale quant a toute action a
entreprendre en vue de la formation de dis-
tricts bilingues tels qu'envisages par le rap-
port Laurendeau-Dunton pour toute region
ou la population d'expression francaise com-
porte 10 pour cent ou davantage du total.
Deja, le gouvernement federal a presente son
projet de Loi concernant le Statut des Lan-
gues OfBcielles du Canada. Cette loi forme le
cadre dans lequel pourrons agir les provinces.
Je formule l'espoir que le gouvernement
procedera pendant cette session a la realisa-
tion de cette recommandation — clef de la
commission Laurendeau-Dunton. Pour que le
Canada devienne pays bilingue, l'Ontario doit
prendre la tete.
Je ne peux faire mieux que de citer brieve-
ment Monsieur Vincent Prince du Devoir.
Voici l'extrait d'un editorial du 8 decembre,
1967 intitule "Les districts bilingues, pierre
angulaire et pierre de touche du rapport
Laurendeau". Je cite:
Nous croyons que les commissaires ont
raison de parler de "pierre angulaire". Ce
192
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
sont des districts, en effet, qui viendront
donner un sens pratique et concret a toutes
les autres recommandations. C'est par eux
que, territorialement, les deux groupes lin-
guistiques atteindront vraiment a un cer-
tain statut d'egalite meme en dehors du
Quebec.
Les francophones qui vivront dans ces
districts officiellement consideres comme
bilingues continueront, certes, a subir une
grande partie des inconvenients inherents a
leur etat de minoritaires, mais, au plan de
leurs relations avec l'autorite telle qu'elle
s'incarne dans leur petit coin de la patrie,
ils n'auraient plus cette penible impression
de se trouver completement en pays etran-
ger.
II y aura desormais, en d'autres termes,
d'importants ilots a travers le pays ou le
caractere bilingue du Canada pourra se re-
fleter. II sera possible de sortir du "ghetto"
quebecois sans tomber necessairement en
territoire unilingue anglais.
Mais nous dirions que la creation de ces
districts ne sera pas que la pierre angulaire
de la reforme d'ensemble suggeree par la
commission royale d'enquete. II en sera
aussi la pierre de touche. Le refus ou
l'acceptation d'un semblable projet par les
autorites federates ou provinciales permet-
tra, en effet, de nous fixer une fois pour
toutes sur la bonne ou la mauvaise volonte
du Canada anglais, s'il y a de la bonne vo-
lonte, bien des espoirs restent permis; par
contre, si la mauvaise volonte devient mani-
festo, il y aurait plus lieu de trop miser sur
l'avenir de la confederation.
Le peuple ontarien est en tres grande majo-
rity engage a outrance a la preservation et a
la consolidation de la confederation.
Je suis d'avis que Monsieur Vincent Prince
n'exagere point l'importance des districts bi-
lingues pour atteindre ce but.
Pour cette raison je presse le gouvernement
a proceder a leur realisation avec toute hate
possible. Le gouvernement est assure d'a-
vance de l'appui non equivoque du Nouveau
Parti Democratique.
Now, Mr. Speaker, returning to the lan-
guage in which we will be more efficient,
may I say that I want now to turn to what is
undoubtedly the major question before this
session of the Legislature— that of taxes, tax
reforms, and the related question of new
fiscal agreements with the federal govern-
ment for sharing of the tax dollar.
Before I begin, may I say that I was most
interested in the comments by the leader of
the Opposition in this connection. In the first
of his comments, for what appears to me to
be the first time there was a frank assertion
that there was need for some renegotiation of
the tax base with the federal government, as
well as some protests with regard to the fed-
eral government's unilateral decision not to
share die new social development tax.
In essence, the Liberal Party's position is
that Ottawa is too rigid! But there is no in-
dication really as to how Ottawa's rigidity
should be eased, that basic rigidity that has
been going on for two years.
The interjection of the leader of the Oppo-
sition indicates that he is only referring to
what happened in the last month or two, in-
stead of the two years of adamant stand with
regard to the federal government.
But he has also said, Mr. Speaker, that
Ontario is too rigid, that we might as well
accept from Ottawa what Ottawa is offering.
After all, they made this assertion two years
ago and they have not changed, so, in effect,
why continue to argue with Ottawa.
Now, that is all very fine, but then he
comes back and says, without any specific
delineation of the programme, that this gov-
ernment obviously has to cut back in many
ways. That is the main preoccupation of the
Liberal government, a preoccupation that
should not be ignored. But I suggest it is not
the whole issue. If there is going to be a cut-
back, we must know where the cutback is
going to be in terms of services. I venture a
prediction— and perhaps this is where a poli-
tician should not stick his neck out— but after
listening to this government last year talk
about all the savings that must be made in
cutting to the bone, we finally got a budget
in this province which was for $486 million
larger— the largest single increase of any year
in Ontario's history.
I venture the prediction that in spite of all
the gloom and doom, in spite of all the talk,
that we are going to cut back, that we are
cutting to the bone, when the budget comes
clown, it is going to be significantly larger
than it was last year.
But the most important thing is that there
is no suggestion— certainly no suggestion,
other than by implication— no suggestion in
detail from the Liberal party as to the basic
need that has got to be tackled, namely, the
reform of our tax structure.
What the Liberal Party is asking this gov-
ernment to do is to seek some alteration in
the division in the present inequitable tax
structure— the present inequitable tax dollar.
NOVEMBER 27, 1968
193
No real consideration of tackling the Carter
commission in its recommendations— no real
consideration back in the province of Ontario
of tax reform.
Mr. Speaker, in my view that makes a
mockery of the kind of society we are
attempting to build in this nation, either at
the national or provincial level— what is re-
ferred to as a just society.
Taxes are certainly the most topical issue
today. Little wonder when you look at recent
developments. Rising property taxes have hit
almost everyone. Earlier this year we all felt
the provincial hikes in the gasoline and the
tobacco taxes, motor vehicle licenses, hospital
md medicare premiums, and fishing and hunt-
ing licenses. Ottawa's new social development
tax has now been added to the personal in-
come surcharge which went into effect last
January 1, and to the federal liquor, beer and
tobacco taxes brought in a month earlier.
Never in our history has there been such a
rapid-fire attack on our personal pockets.
Naturally, it has aroused deep concern, par-
ticularly when it is coincident with a rise in
living costs at double the rate of the previous
decade. Loud noises from government spokes-
men at both Queen's Park and Ottawa warn
us that we have not seen anything yet, so the
issue becomes of even greater importance
than the current scene seems to suggest.
A situation such as this prompts one to ask
whether the Liberals in Ottawa, or the Con-
servatives here at Queen's Park, know what
they are doing in the tax field. Have they a
tax philosophy? Oliver Wendell Holmes once
said: "With taxes I buy civilization." We all
know that nothing in this world is free, and
the public programmes must be paid for
through taxes.
We also recognize that an increasing num-
ber of our wants can bs met only through
community action. You cannot buy a yard of
clean air at the department store, or a mile
of super highway as an extra with your car.
But if we are going to finance more things
collectively through taxes, we must be abso-
lutely sure that they are imposed in the fair-
est possible way.
Several years ago, John Kenneth Galbraith
warned us that we face a superabundance of
private goods, but a famine in public goods.
The truth of his statement is self-evident
today. Our stores are jammed with every
kind of electrical gadgets and toys for Christ-
mas shoppers, but we have not enough serv-
iced land to keep the price of lots at reason-
able levels for prospective home owners.
We have not sufficient space in our com-
munity colleges for the 2,300 applicants who
were turned away this year. We have not
enough government funds, through rehabili-
tation and counselling, which might end the
poverty syndrome, that condemns generation
;ifter generation to a life of welfare and
deprivation.
Galbraith pointed out that with this kind
of distortion, in our allocating our resources,
none of us enjoys the good life to the full.
The enjoyment of having a car is seriously
reduced on highways that are congested and
dangerous. The satisfaction of owning a sum-
mer cottage is a much less if there is no
unpolluted lake to swim in. But this brings
us face to face, Mr. Speaker, with the
dilemma of our day.
When you offer people a choice between
doing without public goods— which are essen-
tial to their well-being— or an increasing tax
to finance them, many prefer to do without
the public goods because they simply cannot
afford them. And they are dead right in that
conclusion!
The couple between 66 and 70 years of
age, for example, living on an old age pen-
sion, even with a supplement, have only
$2,570 income. They just cannot afford $47.40
that they now must pay in income tax, nor
can they afford the 5 per cent provincial sales
tax and the hidden federal sales tax, which
they pay on almost all of the goods they
purchase, except food.
The person on fixed income cannot absorb
the increase in his property taxes every year.
Nor can the 190,000 workers on minimum
wages afford any more taxes, because even
the new minimum wage income levels rep-
resent only $2,704 a year, if they are lucky
enough to work 40 hours a week. Such
minimum wage levels simply establish and
condone a pocket of poverty which stretches
all across the province of Ontario.
Even less can these groups, and many
others, afford an increase in the sales tax,
or an extension of the sales tax to food, car
repairs or hair cuts. A tax system which
imposes heavier burdens on people such as
these is grossly inequitable. They are carry-
ing more than their fair share of the burden
right now. But there are groups which can
afford to pay more to ensure that they them-
selves, or society as a whole, are not starved
of public goods.
The person who makes a capital gain on
the stock market has more money in his
pocket than his neighbour. The land specu-
lator who reaps a windfall gain from the
194
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
growth of a community has an unearned
profit financed out of the taxes paid by
everybody. The person, or company, able to
take advantage of the present income tax
loopholes is holding privileged dollars which
are taxed more lightly than those in the
pockets of the ordinary wage earners.
We must, and we can, afford more public
goods if we are going to meet the problems
of urbanization and break the stalemate
which is leading to the civil unrest every-
where. But we can afford them only if we
finance them by fair share taxes based on
the ability to pay. This will require a re-
structuring of our entire tax system at all
three levels of government, but the present
shrill dialogue between the Tories here and
the Liberals in Ottawa and our municipal
representatives has degenerated into an aim-
less squabbling which offers no hope of satis-
fying the needs of the people they claim to
represent.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I think what we
have got to do first is take a look at what
are the features of an equitable tax struc-
ture. I want to deal with that now in terms
of the distinctive features of a New Demo-
cratic tax system.
1. The first principle would be basic
equity, with every citizen being called upon
to assume his fair share— no more, no less—
of the total burden. People in like circum-
stances would be treated equally.
2. No type of income should go untaxed.
3. It should effect a significant redistribu-
tion of income and wealth with our objec-
tive being equality of condition rather than
merely of opportunity.
4. It should, of course, be based on ability
to pay, with rate schedules even more pro-
gressive.
5. The tax system should be regarded as
a major instrument in planning economic
growth and assuring full employment.
6. It must reflect increasing emphasis on
channelling corporate surpluses, which are
the major pool of investment capital, in
greater measure toward major public projects.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to this House
that you can get a picture of the New Demo-
cratic tax system if you study the 20 dissents
that were made by the New Democratic
members who sat on the select committee
which studied the Smith committee recom-
mendations.
In essence they demanded "a reshaping of
the Ontario tax structure to make it a truly
dynamic and progressive tax system".
Such a tax system will rely primarily on
those sources which are most equitable and
whose yield is most elastic— sources like the
income tax and transfers of wealth between
generations, all of which produce increases
in revenue at a faster rate than the provin-
cial products grow. This occurs because such
taxes are generally levied with progressive
rate schedules.
But even these taxes will be equitable,
and will yield their true potential, only if
all income and wealth is included in the tax
base. As the Carter commission pointed out,
our present taxes in these fields are like a
sieve through which many dollars escape, or
are taxed too lightly. Such things as capital
gains, stock options, resources industry profits
and insurance investment income make up
the $5 billion which is not carrying its proper
share of the collective costs of our society.
Broadening the tax base and closing these
loopholes to catch exempt income dollars
will produce a substantial increase in revenue
for both the federal and provincial govern-
ments, without any increase in the present
tax rates, or any additional burden on the
ordinary wage earner or pensioner.
I ask this question: have we ever heard
the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts) of this
province, or the Provincial Treasurer (Mr.
MacNaughton), advocating such a reform?
Have the Liberals mentioned this source of
revenue? Their joint silence on this topic is
deafening. Ottawa's virtual rejection of the
Carter report, and Mr. Trudeau's spurning
of a capital gains tax during the election
campaign, indicates little prospect for a
broadened tax base. Instead, the federal
Liberals put their new taxes on these least
able to pay.
Most economists reject complete reliance
on income tax alone for all revenue needs
and they recommend instead a carefully
balanced mix of taxes on income, wealth and
consumption. This ensures that no form of
activity escapes tax; that visitors and non-
resident companies pay a share, and that
rates do not get out of line with those in
neighbouring jurisdictions or cause psycho-
logical blocks to certain kinds of economic
activity.
In our opinion, the ideal tax is one which
places most stress on reformed and broadened
income and wealth taxes, and de-emphasizes
property taxes, sales taxes, flat rate premiums
and other regressive forms of taxation.
Furthermore, in all its levies the ideal tax
mix includes relieving clauses which lift the
burden of taxation from the low income
NOVEMBER 27, 1968
195
groups, who really have no surplus after they
have provided for their food, clothing and
shelter needs. These groups may even be
entitled to a negative tax which would return
to them some of the collective contributions
from other groups which are fortunate
enough to have more bargaining power in
the market place.
You can call this principle a negative in-
come tax, or a guaranteed annual income, or
whatever term you wish. If it is m~re than
a refund of over-taxation it recognizes our
fiscal system must include redistribution as
one of its elements, to compensate for the
imperfections of the market system.
The New Democratic Party tax mix will
not, I assure you, follow the present Tory
trend of reducing the proportion of revenue
derived from corporate income— something
which has been going on for the past ten
years or so— while increasing the proportion
from personal income. Even if we concede
that some of the corporate taxes is passed on
to consumers and becomes, in effect, a sales
tax, the exact amount varies from industry
to industry and depends on the competitive
conditions of the moment.
There are strong arguments for continuing
to collect a fair share from corporate sur-
pluses, particularly when a large proportion
of them go across the border, and if untaxed,
simply benefit either foreign shareholders or
foreign governments at the expense of the
Canadian taxpayer.
Transfer of wealth between generations is
another revenue source which must be in-
cluded in the tax mix. This source has been
neglected by the present government. In a
paper delivered to the Canadian Tax Foun-
dation conference on the Smith report last
January, Professor Claude Forget, of the
University of Montreal, said:
"Wealth taxation could make a decidedly
greater contribution to public finances.
Moreover, from an economic viewpoint,
given the reason for people saving, estate
and gift taxes are most unlikely to reduce
the amount of savings. If anything, those
taxes may very well stimulate savings.
A rather sharply contradictory view to that
which is normally propagated, I suggest to
you, Mr. Speaker.
The new federal rules under which trans-
fers between spouses are exempt, and heavier
taxes are placed on other transfers, will make
it necessary for Ontario to re-examine our
succession duties. If we do not act promptly,
the lack of harmonization between the two
statutes will cause great inconvenience to
taxpayers and our failure to impose a gift
tax will permit the revenue to be seriously
eroded. The Smith committee recommended
a provincial gift tax, but the select commit-
tee's conservative majority— and I think that
could be a small "c" there— backed away
from it. The New Democratic members dis-
sented from the committee's timidity.
I note that the Ontario Economic Council
does not appear to share the select commit-
tee's feeling that transfers between genera-
tions are a suitable tax source. On page 11
of its report, the select committee says:
Your committee, moreover, thinks that
the area of wealth taxes has been inade-
quately explored, and that it offers both
qualitative and quantitative advantages as
a potential source of revenue.
The economic council's conclusions are in
striking contrast to that. It claims that the
present wealth taxes in Canada represent "an
economically regressive taxation policy". Its
study of succession duties is a lop-sided
analysis of their effect only on closely-held
private corporations. In order to permit the
small segment of the population engaged in
this type of business activity to establish
small dynasties, the council is prepared to
completely free from taxes the shares of
such companies. Its tender solicitude for this
class of succession duty taxpayers is based
on a premise which both Carter and the
Smith commission found false after consider-
able research, namely, that estate taxes and
succession duties are the cause of the break-
up of family businesses or their take-over by
foreign owners.
One wonders then if the government will
respond to the economic council's neanderthal
advice to discriminate in favour of one form
of business activity, and to question the
whole function of inheritance taxes, when
the select committee urged greater reliance
on them.
One also wonders about the merits of
retaining a body such as the economic coun-
cil which appears to have become so pre-
occupied with the building up of special
privilege and inequality of economic oppor-
tunity in this province.
But, Mr. Speaker, to return to the general
picture. The New Democratic Party also
believes that a proper tax mix must include a
fair return to the people of the province for
the use of their resources. The present rev-
enue amounts to less than two per cent of
the $2 billion produced by our mining and
forest industries. It does not even cover the
196
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
cost of the services provided to those in-
dustries by the provincial and local govern-
ments.
Furthermore, in our tax mix, the heavy
burden of the regressive property tax will
be lightened by the provincial government's
gradual assumption of education, health and
welfare costs, and by promoting efficiency
through regional government.
In addition, burdens and costs will be
equalized through the adoption of the muni-
cipal foundation programme for general serv-
ices, similar to the educational foundation
programme now in effect. I dealt with this
proposal at length in the Throne speech last
February and I note that the select commit-
tee on the Smith report moved toward
acceptance of the principle in its recom-
mendations for mining municipalities. Unfor-
tunately, its formula does not go far enough
and equalizes mainly the revenue side of
the equation, without giving sufficient weight
to differences in costs of providing services
among these municipalities. Also, it only
brings municipalities up to the provincial
average, which may not be adequate to
assure a proper standard of services to all
residents of the province.
Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party
would also lighten the sales tax, either by
exempting additional necessities of life, or
by providing tax credits and rebates for
those which are difficult to administer. The
credit approach is a familiar device for off-
setting tax on items where an exemption is
cumbersome, but it is completely unsuitable
as a substitute for a food exemption since
food constitutes such a large proportion of
the spending of low income families, and
they simply cannot afford to wait for a
refund of excess tax six months or a year
later.
Under our tax mix, we would depart from
the highly regressive method of financing
hospital and medical care largely through
flat rate premiums. Instead, we propose
nominal premiums for most families and in-
dividuals, with complete exemption for wel-
fare recipients and low income groups. The
balance of the cost would be financed from
the progressive tax system which a New
Democratic government will substitute for
our present lopsided system after the 1971
election.
We believe that gasoline and motor ve-
hicle taxes should be kept to a level sufficient
to negotiate the motorists' fair share of the
cost of providing road systems. Current eco-
nomic thinking in the Smith report places
this at somewhere between two-thirds and
three-quarters of the expenditures.
Incidentally, our present highway taxes
are something over 100 per cent, and yester-
day, by a decision that has not yet come
before this House, we had an increase further
in car licenses. ^
However, Mr. Speaker, having dealt in
many details in this broad tax picture with
the tax mix that we would advocate let me
then summarize the approaches which a
New Democratic government would follow
in reforming the tax system of the province
of Ontario.
First, the tax mix would be altered to
emphasize those taxes which are most pro-
gressive, growth-producing and offer the
most potential for revenue.
Second, we would reform the personal
and corporate income taxes so as to broaden
the overall tax base, close the present tax
loopholes, and afford a greater measure of
relief to low income earners.
Third, we would institute a tax on capital
gains and on speculative land transactions.
Fourth, relief of the property tax would
flow from the province assuming a larger
proportion of current municipal costs, and
through a foundation plan for municipal
finance.
Fifth, we would decrease reliance on the
sales tax, and exempt additional necessities.
Sixth, we would move away from regres-
sive, flat rate premiums as the principal
means of paying for health and hospital
services.
Seventh, taxes on motor vehicles and gaso-
line would be kept to a level representing
their fair share of road costs.
This then is our concept of an ideal tax
system. It is the only one which will en-
sure that our collective needs are paid for
in accordance with ability to pay, and that
they are not denied because the burden of
taxes is too heavy on some segments of the
population.
While the Smith committee and the select
committee on taxation fell short of this ideal
system, it did provide us with a wealth of
material and proposals which must now be
sifted through and the progressive proposals
implemented. What we need, Mr. Speaker,
is the machinery for establishing a continu-
ing working relationship between the pro-
vincial government and the municipalities to
achieve this objective.
My proposal would be that there should
be set up a provincial tax structure commit-
NOVEMBER 27, 1968
197
tee for working out collective decisions and
producing an integrated taxation policy at
the provincial level.
If there is a need— and Ontario has been
arguing it vigorously for years— for the fed-
eral government to sit down with the prov-
inces and work out systematically a more
accurate equation of responsibilities and
revenues to meet them, then there is an
equally pressing need for the province to
sit down with the municipalities. Together
they must work out an integrated tax policy,
providing the municipalities with the neces-
sary revenues to meet whatever responsibili-
ties are going to be left with them, and that
is our decision as to what shall be left with
them.
An integrated tax policy at the provincial-
municipal level becomes even more important
as we move to the establishment of regional
government. Larger and more efficient units
of local government